[CONAN] Interesting Weapon & Combat Model

[LucaCherstich]

well, that "exoticity" is mainly brought on by later sourcebooks, otehr than the Core Rules.
For example the Players Guide.
However, some of these "exotic" in the Players Guide are quite stupid.
For example, I still do not understand why an Hyborian expert with an Arming or Broad Sword considers "exotic" the Vendhyan "khandar" which is not THAT different.
Or somebody expert in the Iranistani Kopis using a Vendhyan Kukri which is quite similar, just smaller (and therefore, maybe, even easier to use).

 

[LucaCherstich]

Regarding One-Handed, two-handed, etc..

In Conan using a two-handed weapon means that the Str bonus to dmg is multiplied x 1.5, while the power attack bonus is multiplied x 2.
So, I think, that I could convert your rules as follow.

Under these rules EVERY weapon can be used with 1 or 2 hands. Even so, one still suffers penalties for attacking with Exotic weapons (e.g. a one-handed warsword).
It is worth reminding that attacking with a weapon held with two hands means using a Str Bonus to damage multiplied by 1,5, and the Power Attacks bonus to damage is multiplied x2.
Attacking with the off-hand means using a 1/2 Str bonus to damage.
Using a two-handed weapon with one hand means not using any Str bonus.
In any case, according to the kind of weapon there are a few modifications on the Triple Stats

ONE-HANDED WEAPONS:
Used one hand: -
Used two-hands: -1 Onset, Str Dmg Bonus x 1,5

ONE-HAND-AND-HALF WEAPONS:
Used one hand:+ 1 Onset, -1 Melee, -1 Defense
Used two-hands: Str Dmg Bonus x 1,5

TWO-HANDED WEAPONS:
Used one hand:- 2 Melee, -2 Defense, No Str dmg bonus
Used two-hands: Str Dmg Bonus x 1,5

Regarding CRITICAL HITS
Convertingf Dmg & Criticals from Codex to Conan is not straightfoward.
It is not just a matter of raising dmg by 1 dice.
Conan sometimes put higher dmg dice, other times the system raises the Crit threat range, other times there is a high AP value.
So, if one DOES NOT WANT to change the values of the weapons from the Conan Core rules the weapons must be considered CASE BY CASE, to keep the Conan system.

I'm keeping on writing my whole conversion document in my spare time.
In this document I give 2 sets of values for each system (both using the triple stats in any case).
Each GameMaster will choose his sytem according to what he likes.

1st Set of values: deault stats. Weapons are kept as much as possible similar to Conan weapons.

2nd Set of values: I call it the "Mortality System" since it is easier to deal criticals. This system is more based on the Codex than on Conan. This system does not care about changing the values of weapon in Conan core rules.
Here is how it works:

Cost: use the Codex cost but in sp instead of gp
HD & HP: use Codex values.
Finesse: sometimes there are weapon in this sytem (e.g. Broadswords) which are Finesse, while tehy are not Finesse in normal Conan rules
Damage: increase damage die by 1 type (1d6 become 1d8, 1d8 becomes 1d12, 1d12 becomes 1d6+1d8, etc.)
Critical Hit: the Crit range threat is chosen according to the number of Attack types (Chop, Slash, Pierce and Bash). So the Pollaxe which has "BCP" (3 atk types) as attack types will have 18-20 (3 numbers as crit range).
The critical damage is now composed by: mulitplied bonus damage + special dices.
The Crit multiplier is used only for multiplying the bonuses (from Str, or weapon focus, etc.) chosen according to the number of Primary attack so 1 types is always x2. The pollaxe which has 2 primary attacks types ("CP") will have a multiplier of the damage bonuses of x3.
The critical damage dices are chosen according to attack types as follows:
Bludgeoning: 1d8 subdual + KO chance
Piercing and Chopping: 1d10
Slashing: 1d12
Concluding our example, the pollaxe will have a "18-20/dmg bonuses x3 + 1d10+1d12" crit stat.

When a weapon with "Bashing" as one of his primary attacks scores a crit, at least one of the mutiplier will just do Subdual Damage but there is a chance for KO. The victim of such a critical must make a For or Will Save (choose the best) vs a DC of 10+1/2 of the total damage done. This total damage should include BOTH the real and subdual damage. The Results are as follow:
- Save made: no effect
- Save failed: Stunned 1-4 round
- Save failed by 4 or more: Unconscious 1-6 turns
(DR bonus for helms can be used as a bonus to this save)

"Stunned" from Conan Core Rules 2e: "A stunned creature drops everything he is holding, cannot take actions and cannot Dodge or Parry."

NOTE: I know that in Codex Piercing does teh same damage as Bludgeoning, but since "B" has KO to be interesting, I gave "P" damage the same critical stats of Chopping to make spears still an interesting option.

 

[galloglaich]

this all sounds reasonable to me.

G.

 

[LucaCherstich]

Galloglaich, I'm still going on with converting your weapons to Conan.
Reading the description I became intrigued by the shamshir (Scimitar) and all of its variants:.

SHAMSHIR & SAIF:
I like your idea of letting use the shamshir in a grapple due to its curved blade, even if it is not a small weapon.
I've also noticed that in the same entry you do not make any rules differentation between the North African, straight Saif Scimitar and the curved Persian Shamshir scimitar.
I would like to use the same stats for both weapons (dmg, AP, triple stats, etc..) but with one important difference:
SHAMSHIR: it can be used in grapple, NO finesse.
SAIF: It cannot be used in grapple. Finesse weapon.
What do you think about it?
Or should I use just different triple stats?
And so 2/5/2 for the Shamshir, 3/4/2 for the Saif (like the Codex'Saber, but more damage)?

SABER AND SHASHKA:
Another question about differences: why did you put the Saber and the Shashka (longer, heavier) with the same damage?
I noticed that there's a difference in triple stats, but bigger Shashka blade, should not need bigger damage? (for example 1d8 as the shamshir/scimitar?)

LIUYE DAO AND YANMAO DAO:
In the description of the Yanmao Dao (3/3/2) you say that it has a better reah than Liuye Dao (3/4/2).
So, why does the Yanmao Dao not have a better Onset bonus than the Liuyed Dao but only a worse speed/melee bonus?

 

[galloglaich]

Galloglaich, I'm still going on with converting your weapons to Conan.
Reading the description I became intrigued by the shamshir (Scimitar) and all of its variants:.

SHAMSHIR & SAIF:
I like your idea of letting use the shamshir in a grapple due to its curved blade, even if it is not a small weapon.
I've also noticed that in the same entry you do not make any rules differentation between the North African, straight Saif Scimitar and the curved Persian Shamshir scimitar.

No, I've already got like 8 or 9 different sabers in there there is only so fine of a granulation I can get to in that rule system. If it was a computer game I'd have 30 or 40 different sabers.

I would like to use the same stats for both weapons (dmg, AP, triple stats, etc..) but with one important difference:
SHAMSHIR: it can be used in grapple, NO finesse.
SAIF: It cannot be used in grapple. Finesse weapon.
What do you think about it?

It's arbitrary but reasonable. The historical reality is that both weapons overlapped quite a bit over the centuries, but there were clearly different versions with different characteristics. For Conan RPG I think this should be fine.

SABER AND SHASHKA:
Another question about differences: why did you put the Saber and the Shashka (longer, heavier) with the same damage?
I noticed that there's a difference in triple stats, but bigger Shashka blade, should not need bigger damage? (for example 1d8 as the shamshir/scimitar?)

The two shashka I was able to examine at a local antique shop in New Orleans were not that big, the three Shamshirs I examined ranged from quite small and light to one which was rather formidable and 39" long. The antique Tulwar I own is quite small but very fast and has a broad but very thin blade. These are all 19th Century antiques though, 16th or 17th Century weapons would likely be different. Ultimately it's an arbitrary decision but I didn't see enough reason to further differentiate them.

LIUYE DAO AND YANMAO DAO:
In the description of the Yanmao Dao (3/3/2) you say that it has a better reah than Liuye Dao (3/4/2).
So, why does the Yanmao Dao not have a better Onset bonus than the Liuyed Dao but only a worse speed/melee bonus?

This is an issue of granularity. The Yanmao Dao I've seen stats for had a couple of inches of reach and a slightly straighter blade on average than a typical Liuye Dao but not necessarily enough to make a difference in the game, and Liuye Dao in particular vary enormously in size and shape and quality of make, some are incredibly sophisticated, others are little more than machetes.

But as I carefully pointed out in the Codex rules there are variations within and between types, so it's reasonable to make the differentiation you did above, so long as you trade them off as you have done. So for example you could make a 4/2/2 Yanmao Dao if you wanted to.

G.

 

[galloglaich]

Hey by the way speaking of using sabers at close range, you might find this interesting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWvsHorqldM&NR=1&feature=fvwp

G.

 

[LucaCherstich]

Just another question: why did you allow shamshir and tulwars to be used in grapple, but not other, similarly curved sabers like the killij or the heavy saber?
I suppose it's all a matter of granularit and game balance, isn'it?

 

[LucaCherstich]

I just came with a some more thinking on Onset & Melee range.
I play with 2.5 ft scale, so everything is pretty easy to figure.

I would like to ask Galloglaich IF this situation sounds realistic, even with all the costrictions of the game system.

Spear-wielders prefer to remain at onset range (1 sq between them & enemy) to exploit the Onset bonus.
Machete-wielders prefer to go on Melee range (adjacent square).
In normal d20 rules you do not provoke AoO with free 5ft steps (in my scale two 2.5 ft steps), even if you leave a threatened square.

I know that in reality approaching with a machete somebody with a spear is dangerous, so you are normally forced to step back (am I wrong?).
But here is what happens in my games when a machete wielder charges Spear-wielder....
There are two possibilities:
- Machete-man stops at Onset, makes his attack there. Does not receive AoO. Next round he goes in Melee with 2.5 ft step, without getting AoO.
- He risks, charging straightly into Melee range, receiveing an AoO as he leaves the Onset range.

AND NOW THE PROBLEMATIC BIT: what will the spear-wilder do after he got the machete wielder so near, in melee range, while he wants to attack him at onset range?
The spear wielder can:
- Attack making a "force back" manoeuvre (Conan 2E:208), even if it means attacking with a -4.
- Bull-rushing the opponent...but in this way he cannot attack, unless he has special feat (e.g. Bullstrike in H.'s Fiercest).
- MOST USED, NATURAL CHOICE IN MY GAMES: Spear-wielder make one 2.5 ft step back to attack the machete wielder at onset.
My question:is this kind of step-back by the spear wielder realistic?

MY SOLUTIONS:
I propose here 2 solutions to make things more realistic, and I hope they will become so, at least in part.

NEW RULES FOR AoO & Combat Ranges:
When you leave Onset range for Melee range, or when you leave Melee range for Onset range you must ALWAYS suffer an AoO, even if you do it with free 5ft or 2.5 ft steps.
This is an exception on the normal rules on AoO & moving with 5ft steps.

Dodging in 2.5 ft scale:
Normal Core Rules: In normal 5ft scale when you dodge you need to have at least 1 free or friendly nearby square. Otherwise you'll suffer a -2 to dodge.
New rules:
When you dodge in 2.5 ft scale you must move by a 2.5ft steps.
There are three details to be said:
- If you do not move, you will suffer -2 to dodge.
- You cannot move straight towards the one who attacks you, but only sidewards or backwards.
- This 2.5 ft steps DOES NOT count for the maximum of one 5ft step(or two 2.5 ft steps).
So you can even dodge 5 attacks, without stopping to have a free step per round.
It is worth remembering that even at this scale Parry does not requires moving in nearby free squares.

IMPORTANT CONSEQUENCES OF THESE SOLUTIONS:
- The machete-man will always find dangerous to step closer to spear-wielder, since he will be attacked by an AoO.
- Even dodging an AoO could make a bit more difficult to reach Melee range.
It is true that dodging 2.5ft does not count for the maximum 5ft free steps...but going back to where you wanted to be burns that 2.5 ft step! So Dodging while approaching a spear is difficult!
- On the other hand, if the spear wielder wants to leave the close combat of the machete he will suffer a AoO too.

 

[galloglaich]

Just another question: why did you allow shamshir and tulwars to be used in grapple, but not other, similarly curved sabers like the killij or the heavy saber?
I suppose it's all a matter of granularit and game balance, isn'it?

No in this case I basically deisgnated the shamshir and tulwar as the more acutely curved types of saber, somewhat arbitrarily, killij are not always as acutely curved, though they sometimes are, but also tend to be much heavier than tulwars or shamshirs, and European sabers (which the heavy saber generally represents) almost never are, they are usually only slightly curved compred to Central Asian sabers.

I specifically explained at some length that with pre-industrial weapons there are variations within type, these weapons are not rolling off an assembly line. The names are really arbitrary; in India a weapon can still be called a tulwar even if it's straight, or has an inward curve, or they may call it a ferrengi sword or a sosun pata or etc. So I defined the reason for the specific feature (acute curve lets you fight at closer range) and designated the weapons which usually had this feature (shamshir and tulwar in this case) while pointing out that such terms were arbitrary and in period (before the 17th Century) these weapons may be referred to by other names or simply as 'swords' for example. If you have any saber with the same feature, a blade with a curve of 15 degrees or more, then it should have this trait. unless it is say, extremely heavy.

A little more thought went into this than is probably obvious, and a lot of vetting by a whole lot of people who know historical weapons quite well, many of whom contributed corrections and adjustments over the period of a couple of years when it first came out. All of the designations are by necessity, compromises so I always tried to explain what design features mean what, there is a section in there I think before all the weapons lists, which explains basically how each feature reach, defense, speed etc. was determined, it's actualy pretty simple.

G.

 

[galloglaich]

I just came with a some more thinking on Onset & Melee range.
I play with 2.5 ft scale, so everything is pretty easy to figure.

I would like to ask Galloglaich IF this situation sounds realistic, even with all the costrictions of the game system.

Spear-wielders prefer to remain at onset range (1 sq between them & enemy) to exploit the Onset bonus.
Machete-wielders prefer to go on Melee range (adjacent square).
In normal d20 rules you do not provoke AoO with free 5ft steps (in my scale two 2.5 ft steps), even if you leave a threatened square.

I have a specific rule for provoking an AoO when you move into melee range, a Martial Feat called advanced point control, which only works for thrusting weapons. Not everyone will have this skill.

I think you are running into some problems here by using the whole grid approach. You have kind of opened up a whole new can of worms which will have to be thought-through rather carefully. I intentionally avoided that. I also think the default movement system of the 3.5 SRD is going to be rather difficult to implement with the codex due to it's poor granularity. If I rememebr correctly, you basically get 1) no movement (but all your extra attacks), 2) one short movement and combat (but no extra attacks) or 3) running flat out (move rate x4 but no attacks). Plus the infamous five foot step. I think people should be able to make a five foot step but a five foot step should NOT in my opinion allow you to change range from onset to melee or back, simply because your opponent can easily move with you in real life. This is again a granularity issue, real fights aren't turn-based, I tried to mix that up a little in the Codex. Nor should everyone have an AoO when their opponent changes range.

I use what works in real life as the source of balance in the Codex; because in real life all the different weapons and fighting techniques were developed with and against each other so it turns out they do in fact balance, that is what makes the Codex system work so smoothly. Simply by putting in realistic stats for the weapons and armor, and adding a few historical fighting techniques as MF, and making the basic structure of movement, attacking and defending roughly correlative to reality, I hardly had to make any rules at all.

The whole core rule system really fit on about four pages. When you start making it more artificial, you have to begin to think of every case and exploit in your rules, which forces it to become more and more convoluted specific rulings, which in turn have cascading effects and etc., ultimately leads to a very complex and slow combat system (probably with a lot of charts) and as often as not also an unbalanced system whcih can be fairly easily broken once people figure it out. As happened with so many systems which were purported to be realistic in the past like Rolemaster, Runequest, GURPS, etc. etc. Which is why realism got a bad name.

So I'm not saying don't go this specific route you are attempting, just think it through carefully. If you want it to work smoothly, simply take what really happens, and try to find the simplest possible rule to emulate that at your chosen level of abstraction. Then you will be ok.

In the Codex, if someone wants to go directly into melee range, they will need to spend an MP (and certain MF may allow the defender to react to that). Onset means the range band of the first attack of the fight, unlike in DnD in a real fight your opponent will not just stand there waiting to be hit, getting past onset range requires getting past this threshold which means more than just distance of so many feet. Getting back to onset is as tricky as avoiding it initially and also requires skill and / or experience. This is jus the way real fights are. This is why amateurs always end up grappling in bar fights.

So my best guess for Conan, within the limitations of the standard SRD movement, if your opponent is aware of your attack your first attack with a machete against a spearman is always going to be at onset range, barrring some circumstantial effects of terrain perhaps. You will have to use your 'Move Equivalent action' to change that but this can only be done only AFTER you have gotten close enough to fight (what DnD calls melee range) and since you only get one movement per turn it limits things somewhat. Your five foot step should NOT allow you to change range IMO.

That is only my opinion though you are free to house-rule it however you like.

G.

 

[galloglaich]

My question:is this kind of step-back by the spear wielder realistic?

Of course it is. A spear fighter will always back up to return into a longer distance. Look at the Martial Feats for Distance fighting for example as an explantion of this mechanic.

G.

 

[LucaCherstich]

Galloglaich, I clearly understand what you said, and it all sounds reasonable, but I cannot change the feats my Players have now.
If I was not so committed to Conan campaign (real life job leaves not so much time for too many campaigns & rpgs) I would have given a try to Codex Martialis as it is, without changing it, and starting with 1st Level Characters.
My problem (and this is possibly the problem of many others) is that I'm mastering a group of old, 9th-level PCs.
They do not want to learn a completely different system, and they do not want to forget their old feats for others.
So what I'm trying to say is that I'm trying to have a very simple set of codex-like rules to attach to what I use in my Conan games, without changing the Conan game too much.
In this sense the 2.5 grid system was a compromise which let me use the triple weapon stats.
In my spare time I'm still working on a conversion document, at some point I will possibly offer the opportunity to choose between a system nearer to Conan and one farther from it (See my post above, on criticals), but I cannot waste too much time now on dice pools.

In conlusion, here is an alternative fix.

If I well understood some basic assumptions should be:
- Charging straight into Melee Range, forgetting Onset Range, is difficult
- Going from Onset to Melee is natural and it happens to everybody making more than one attack.
- Once you are in Melee range is difficult to get back to Onset range with a step back, unless you are an expert fighter (your feat ADVANCED DISTANCE FIGHT).
- a 5ft step should not be used to change ranges, since it makes it too easy to be done.

ARE THESE ASSUMPTIONS RIGHT?
If so, thinking about rules, my personal needs are:
- not to make too many rules
- not to oblige old Conan PCs to choose other feats
- keep the 2.5 ft grid & miniatures (or counters), otherwise in vary large combat (with 20 or 30 participants) I would become lost in remembering who is at Onset and who is at Melee.

So a solution could be to use this series of rules:

1 - Every fight starts at Onset (one square between enemies).

2 - Charging directly into Melee Range (forgetting Onset) is impossible. Unless for situation/terrain reasons you happen to be already at Onset (e.g. an ambush) and you can go straightly to Melee with a move-equivalent action.

3 - If you make a full attack at Onset (so you have more than 1 attack), you automatically go into Melee Range with all the attacks but the first one. (I'M A BIT DUBIOUS ABOUT THIS, SINCE IT COULD MAKE THINGS IN CONAN A BIT COMPLICATED). Move the miniature or counter by 1 sq towards the enemy for free.

4 - Going From Onset to Melee Range costs a Move Action, even if it looks like a 2.5 ft step (so, usually this leaves High level PCs with just 1 attack that round).

5 - Going from Melee Range to Onset Range costs a Move Action but your opponent can attack you with an AoO (and you can defend it with Mobility and similar feats, etc.).

A great thing about Conan system are the MANOEUVRES, which are in fact free feats.
If you meet those prerequisites, you can make that action!
So, we can make a couple of manoeuvres to allow old PCs to still act as expert fighters.

This manoeuvre should (at least partly) mimic yout Advanced Point control feat:
NEW MANOEUVRE:
KEEP THE DISTANCE
Your enemy is trying to get closer to you, but you make his life a bit more complicated.
Action: Immediate
Prerequisites: BAB 6+
Circumstance: Your enemy is spending a Move Action to go from Onset to Melee Range
Effect: You can make an Attack of Opportunity against the enemy who changes range using the weapon bonus you like the most (the Onset or the Melee bonus in the triple stats).

This manoeuvre should (at least partly) mimic yout Advanced Distance Fight feat:
NEW MANOEUVRE:
STEP BACK
You try to step back from the enemy to betetr exploit your longer weapon.
Action: part of the move-equivalent action for changing ranges.
Prerequisites: Mobility
Circumstance: You are at Melee close range, where your weapon is not very effective, and you want to go back to Onset Range with a Move-equivalent action
Effect: When you move this way from Melee to Onset, your enemy cannot use an Attack of Opportunity against you (as if you have the Improved Mobility class ability).

 

[galloglaich]

So what I'm trying to say is that I'm trying to have a very simple set of codex-like rules to attach to what I use in my Conan games, without changing the Conan game too much.
(snip) but I cannot waste too much time now on dice pools.

You apparently misunderstood me. I was not suggesting you use dice pools or new Feats or Martial Feats, I was just trying to explain to you the logic I used so you could reverse-engineer it.

If I well understood some basic assumptions should be:
- Charging straight into Melee Range, forgetting Onset Range, is difficult

Yes

- Going from Onset to Melee is natural and it happens to everybody making more than one attack.

Yes

- Once you are in Melee range is difficult to get back to Onset range with a step back, unless you are an expert fighter (your feat ADVANCED DISTANCE FIGHT).

Yes, no you don't need a special Feat, that MF actually gives you an extra AoO. I think you just need to spend your movement to move from Onset to Melee or back. And if you have the Mobility feat that might be part of it.

- a 5ft step should not be used to change ranges, since it makes it too easy to be done.

Yes, and also there is no tactical tradeoff since everybody gets 5' step for free.

4 - Going From Onset to Melee Range costs a Move Action, even if it looks like a 2.5 ft step (so, usually this leaves High level PCs with just 1 attack that round).

That is actually what I was suggesting.

5 - Going from Melee Range to Onset Range costs a Move Action but your opponent can attack you with an AoO (and you can defend it with Mobility and similar feats, etc.).

I don't think your opponent should get an AoO if you move from melee to Onset.

A great thing about Conan system are the MANOEUVRES, which are in fact free feats.
If you meet those prerequisites, you can make that action!
So, we can make a couple of manoeuvres to allow old PCs to still act as expert fighters.

This manoeuvre should (at least partly) mimic yout Advanced Point control feat:
NEW MANOEUVRE:
KEEP THE DISTANCE

This is basically my advanced point control MF. Distance fighting gives you extra defense capability when you have space to move back, it's a different dynamic.

This manoeuvre should (at least partly) mimic yout Advanced Distance Fight feat:
NEW MANOEUVRE:
STEP BACK
You try to step back from the enemy to betetr exploit your longer weapon.
Action: part of the move-equivalent action for changing ranges.
Prerequisites: Mobility
Circumstance: You are at Melee close range, where your weapon is not very effective, and you want to go back to Onset Range with a Move-equivalent action
Effect: When you move this way from Melee to Onset, your enemy cannot use an Attack of Opportunity against you (as if you have the Improved Mobility class ability).

I don't think this one is necessary, instead I'd reccomend, allow them to use their 5' step IF they are at Onset, and gain a Dodge or Parry bonus .. .as this is what actually happens in a real fight.

G.

 

[LucaCherstich]

Sorry if I'm slow in argumenting, logorrhic as usual and repetitive, this is not my native language and I want to be sure of what I say.

OK, summarizing it again, the new rules could be divided as follows: Basic & Optional.
Basic for those who want to use triple stats without changing Conan too much.
If one wants to use make it more realistic, there are optional rules and manoeuvres to be added.

I would like to know your ideas on no.s 3 and 4.
No.4 is interesting and realistic, but it looks like something which makes my combat more complicated with full attack (I need to playtest it with my players).
The consequence of this manoeuver is that spears and bardiches are not THAT useful as I thought the first time I've realized what the triple stats were (maybe I misunderstood the Onset Bonus).

I want also to know your idea on the "Maintaining Range" maneuver.
I know you trade nothing for it, but it can be done only by expert fighters (BAB 6+).


BASIC RULES:

1 - Going from Onset range to Melee range costs 1 Move Action, and does not provoke AoO .

2 - Going from Melee range to Onset range costs 1 Move Action, and does not provoke AoO.

3 - Every fight usually starts at Onset (one square between enemies) but we need 2 clarifications:
3a - Charging directly into Melee Range (forgetting Onset) is usually impossible since it requires a Move action (and one usually gets into Onset Range with a Move or Charge action).
3b - if an enemy has charged you and he has still not moved into melee range, you can attack him at Onset, or spend a Move Action, and attack him at Melee range.
The same note applies for situation/terrain reasons where you happen to be already at Onset (e.g. an ambush) and you can go straightly to Melee with a move-equivalent action.


OPTIONAL RULES to make the games more realistic:

4 - If you make a full attack at Onset (so you have more than 1 attack for high BAB, or maybe because of two weapons), you make the FIRST attack at Onset.
Then you MUST automatically move the miniature or counter by 1 sq into Melee range FOR FREE and make all remaining attacks there.

If one uses this optional rule, he needs also to apply the following new manoeuvres:

NEW MANOEUVRE
KEEP THE DISTANCE
Your enemy is trying to get closer to you, but you make his life a bit more complicated.
Action: Immediate
Prerequisites: BAB 6+
Circumstance: Your enemy is spending a Move Action to go from Onset to Melee Range
Effect: You can make an Attack of Opportunity against the enemy who changes range using the weapon bonus you like the most (the Onset or the Melee bonus in the triple stats).

NEW MANOEUVRE:
STEP BACK NEW VERSION
Your enemy attacks you at Onset range. You try to step back from the enemy in order to avoid his attack.
Action: Immediate
Prerequisites: Mobility OR Dodge OR Parry
Circumstance: Your enemy is attacking you at onset range
Effect: You spend the 2.5 ft step (or 5ft step in 5ft grid) to go backward (and avoid the other attacks) or sideway (and get a +2 to Parry or Dodge).
NOTE : You have only one free 5ft step (or two 2.5 ft steps) per round. This manoeuvre consumes the free 2.5 or 5ft free step, so you cannot use it in your turn. If you have already spent it in your turn, it cannot be used in this way with this maneuver.

NEW MANOEUVRE:
MAINTAINING RANGE
You keep on attacking from Onset range with all the attacks in a full attack.
Action: part ot the full-attack
Prerequisites: BAB 6+
Circumstance: You are making a full attack at Onset Range
Effect: You can make all the attacks of a Full Attack at Onset Range without being obliged to go into melee range.

 

[galloglaich]

Works for me

G.

 

[LucaCherstich]

Sorry for my continous re-thinking, we spoke about making decisions and the cascading game consequences each decision has, so, before playing it, I would like to consider all of the possible consequences.
In any case, I've not changed idea regarding everything we have alredy discussed.
It's just that we need some mroe specifications, and off course I would like to hear you ideas.
And sorry for all this complicatedness!

FROM ONSET TO MELEE vs Multiple opponents
Wit the basic rules above (no.s 1 and 2) we crashed one of the basics of d20 3.5 which is: "when you LEAVE a threatened square with a move action, you receive an AoO."
It is not that bad, we just need to state that:
"A move action to change range from Onset to Melee (or Melee to Onset) does not provokes AoO, unless one can use speficic feats and/or manoeuvres."
If this is true, there are a few consequences we need to consider.

Example: the machete-wielder is at onset with a line of three spear-wielders.
He is in a bad situation and prefers to go into Melee where his weapon works better.
Machete-man is in front of the middle spearman, at Onset, with 1 sq between him and the middle spearman.
This means he is also at Onset range with the other two spearman.
He spends a Move Action to go 1sq forward, going also into Melee Range with the other two Spearmen.
Are the two other spearmen allowed to make an AoO vs the Machete Man?
I think not.
Because this is the case IF we state that all the Onset-to-Melee (or Melee-to-Onset) move actions do not provoke AoO.


STEP BACK:
I had some more thinking on this new manoeuvre.

CONSIDERATION no.1
Maybe we should make the subject spend:
- a 5ft step if he moves sidewards (gaining a +2 to dodge or Parry)
- a Move Action rather than a 5ft step if he moves backwards (moving out of Onset, nullyfing otehr attacks in the same round).
Physically speaking the backward move is still a 1 square step...but the gain is too much for spending just a free step!

CONSIDERATION no.2
This is just a specification on the new manoeuvre.
I said that we should use it really only if we use optional no.4 (obligation to go into melee for second attacks).
However, there's a problematic situation, since I know my players, and I know somebody will try to use no.4 to nullify the step back.
But I cannot allow it.
I explain why (and I hope it makes sense).
Here's my sequence:
1) Spearman attacks machete man at Onset with Full attack, he makes first attack at Onset
2) Machete-man step backwards, so he just dodges the first attack, but others attacks cannot be done against him.
3) PROBLEMATIC PHASE: here is my idea.
Rule no.4 (with its obligation to move forward into melee) cannot work. Since the target got out of the Onset Range, it cannot be attacked again in this turn.

 

[LucaCherstich]

REACH WEAPONS

Normal Conan rules:
Under normal Conan Rules a Reach weapon is a weapon which can attack at Reach Range, but not shorter than that.

"Warspear" is the typical Conan Reach Weapon with a Reach of 10 ft.
In normal 5ft grid, it attacks the second square from the wielder (10 ft), but it cannot attacks the first, adjacent square (5ft).

The "Pike" is unique, since it has a 20 ft Reach.
In normal 5ft grid, it attacks the fourth square from the wielder (20 ft), but it cannot attacks the first three squares from the wielder (5-15ft).

Natural Reach: this is the Reach of large monsters. They can attack adjacent squares even if they have 10 or 20 ft reach.

A good advantage of Reach weapons is that when an enemy leaves the threatened square with anything but a free step, it allows an AoO.

New Rules with Triple Stats & 2.5 ft Grid:
What is Onset and what is Melee for Reach Weapons?

Here is my proposal:

1) Natural Reach.
This is easy.
Melee Reach is any adjacent square (first 2.5 ft).
Onset is anything beyond that and until the natural limits of Reach.
So, a Large monster with a natural Reach of 10 will have:
- 1 adjacent square of Melee range (2.5 ft)
- 2nd, 3rd and 4th squares of Onset Melee range (5 - 10 ft).
N.B: Those 3 squares is the Onset of Large creature with 10ft reach. A medium human attacking a Large Creature still has his OWN Onset (2nd square).
AoO: Attacks of opportunity are still provoked by somebody moving INSIDE the Onset Range and leaving a threatened square with anything but a free 2.5 or 5 ft step.
So, if a medium man moves inside the Large Creature Onset Range with a Move Action, he still provokes an AoO.
N.B.2: Moving from Onset to Melee STILL requires a Move Action and does not provokes AoO.


2) Reach Weapons.

Warspear and other 10ft Reach weapon:
- They cannot attack 1st and 2nd squares nearby (2.5-5ft squares), if not with the haft (see "Reach Weapon and close combat").
- The Third square (7.5 ft) is Melee Range
- The Fourth Square (10 ft) is Onset Range.
AoO: Attacks of opportunity are still provoked by:
- somebody moving INSIDE the Onset or the Melee Range with anything but a free 2.5 or 5 ft step, but not changing Range between Onset and Melee (maybe moving sideways)
- somebody moving from the Melee square to the 1st and 2nd squares with anything but a free 2.5 or 5 ft step (see "Normal Reach vs Reach Weapons below").
N.B.: Moving from Onset to Melee STILL requires a Move Action and does not provokes AoO.

Pikes (20ft Reach weapon):
- They cannot attack the first 6 squares (2.5-15ft squares), if not with the haft (see "Reach Weapon and close combat").
- The Seventh square (12.5 ft) is Melee Range
- The Fourth Square (15 ft) is Onset Range.
AoO: Attacks of opportunity are still provoked by:
- somebody moving INSIDE the Onset or the Melee Range with anything but a free 2.5 or 5 ft step, but not changing Range between Onset and Melee (maybe moving sideways)
- somebody moving from the Melee square to the 6th square with anything but a free 2.5 or 5 ft step (see "Normal Reach vs Reach Weapons below").
N.B.: Moving from Onset to Melee STILL requires a Move Action and does not provokes AoO

Reach Weapons and Close Combat
According to Conan Core Rules a Reach Weapon usually cannot be used against somebody who is nearer than that Reach range.
In these new rules the weapon (with a Melee Modifiers from triple stats) can be used in two ways:
1) Since the majority of Reach weapons have an haft, Melee Range means using just the haft for attacks. Haft does 1d4 dmg, AP 0
2) One can use the weapon normal Dmg, Crit & AP if he uses the "ShortHaft" feat (n.b. Pikes can use it only at the 5th and 6th squares):

SHORT HAFT
General
You have trained in long spear and polearm fighting alongside your comrades in arms, sometimes reaching past them while they shield you, and sometimes shielding them while they attack from behind you.
Prerequisites: BAB +3, Proficiency with a reach weapon, Weapon Focus with any reach weapon OR Spearman fet OR any Classi level Ability (Soldier formation ability, Borderer combat style, etc.) which specifically mentions spears or any other infantry's Reach weapons (not Lances).
Benefit: If you have at least 5ft of free or friendly space behind you, as a free action, you can choose to lose the reach benefit of wielding any hafted reach weapon. In return, you can use that weapon to threaten and attack spaces adjacent to you (5ft scale) or, in a 2.5 ft scale, using Onset and Melee ranges of a normal, non-reach weapon.
So, if an enemy runs into your adjacent square, which is Melee Range for him but not usable for you, with this free action you can use your reach weapon as if you are in Melee range too.
With an immediate action (usable also in another's turn), you can give up this feat’s benefit in order to regain the use of your weapon’s superior reach.
NOTES:
- You can use this feat even with any reach weapons you are proficient with, even if you do not have the weapon focus with it (prerequisite of this feat).
- Pikes are extremely long weapons, so this feat can be used it only at the 5th and 6th squares.

Normal Reach vs Reach Weapons
When two enemies with similar reach weapons fight (e.g. two warspear wielders) understanding Melee and Onset ranges is easy.
More complicated is the situation of a Reach Weapon vs a non-Reach weapons, or of two Reach weapons with different Reach ranges (Warspear vs Pike).

The basic guidelines in understanding the situation remains the rule:
- Moving from Onset to Melee STILL requires a Move Action and does not provokes AoO

Given this basic statement, to understand what is Onset and what is Melee for you, use the following considerations:
- You consider yours Onset and Melee Ranges for the sake of using your triple stats, but maybe not for spending a Move Action.
- You MUST spend a Move Action to move from Onset to Melee, but the choice is wether to spend it at your range or your enemy's range.
Here are the two choices:

CHOICE 1) If you do not want to spend that Move Action to go from your enemy's Onset to your enemy's Melee range, but go straightly to your own Onset range, you will suffer an AoO at enemy's Onset Range when you exit from that square.
If, in this process, you go even beyond you enemy's Melee Range with anything but a free 2.5 step (and still without spending a Move action), you will suffer a second AoO at Melee Range (if the enemy still has AoO available).
The point in this choise of this is that you will still spend a Move Action, but to go from your own Onset to your own Melee.
But doing so, costs the risk of AoO.

CHOICE 2) If you spend a Move Action to go from your enemy' Onset to Melee, you can even not stop at your enemy's Melee range, but go beyond, straightly into the range you like the most, your own Onset or Melee Range.
You can even go straightly to your own Melee range, forgetting your own onset and without spending a second Move Action.
Why did I allow this?
I do it since the man has already spent a Move Action.
However, if in this process you go beyond your enemy's Melee Range WITH MORE than a 2.5 ft step, your enemy is allowed to attack you with an AoO at his Melee mod as you exit his Melee range.

With the above rules Reach Weapons become more useful, since they stop, at least in part, the momentum of a charge. Furthermore the advantage of doing an AoO is preserved.

IT all sounds complicated with TOO many AoO?
False!
Look at the EXAMPLES:
W = wielder
1,2,3,etc.. number of square
O: Onset wielder
M: Melee wielder

EXAMPLES OF CHOICE 1 (not spending Move Action at your enemy's range)
The Example is WarSperman (reach 10 ft) vs Machete man.
Machete Man wants to charge the Warspearman.
To charge and Hit him, he needs to go beyond Warspearman's Onset Range, ending up in his own Onset range, liek this

Warspear: W / 1 / 2 / 3M / 4O
Machete : 2O /1M/W
During this charge machete man has:
- moved beyond Warspearman Onset WITHOUT spending a move action, so he suffers an AoO
- moved beyond Warspearman Melee with a 2.5 step, so he does not suffer an AoO

Let's do now Pikeman vs Macheteman
Pikeman: W / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7M / 8M
Machete: 2O/1M/W
During this charge machete man has:
- moved beyond Warspearman Onset WITHOUT spending a move action, so he suffers an AoO
- moved beyond Warspearman Melee WITHOUT spending a move action, so he suffers a second AoO (If the pikeman still has available AoO).

EXAMPLES OF CHOICE 2 (spending a Move Action at your enemy's range)
Still Warspear + machete
Macheteman ends up in Warspear's Onset (4th square) by any means, he is clearly not charging straighly into Warspear wielder.

Warspear: W/1 / 2/ 3M / 4O
Machete : -/ -/2O/1M/ W

Macheteman spends a Move Action and he is in Warspear Melee Range (3rd square) WITHOUT suffering AoO
Warspear: W/1 / 2/ 3M / 4O
Machete : -/2O/1M/ W

With a Free 2.5 ft step, in teh same round, Machete Man can now go 1 square forward, putting twe warsper wielder in in his own Onset.

Warspear: W/1 / 2/ 3M / 4O
Machete : 2O/1M/ W
In this way Macheteman has not suffered any AoO, but he has spent a Move Action to be at his own Onset range.

However, Machete man can even go straightly to his own Melee range (he gained that right by spending a Move Action at the warspear Onset/Melee Range!).
So the situation should be as follows:
Warspear: W/1 / 2/ 3M / 4O
Machete : 1M/ W
Nevertheless, in this case Macheteman will suffer an AoO, since he did more than one 2.5 step to go straightly into Melee.


And now, let's see the rarer example of Choices 2 but Pikeman vs Macheteman

Macheteman ends up in Pikeman's Onset (8th square) by any means, he is clearly not charging straighly into Pikeman.

Pikeman:W /1 /2 /3 /4 /5 /6 /7M/8O
Machete: - / - / - / - / - /2O/1M/ W

Macheteman spends a Move Action and he is in Pikeman Melee Range (7th square) WITHOUT suffering AoO
Pikeman:W /1 /2 /3 /4 /5 /6 /7M/8O
Machete: - / - / - / - /2O/1M/ W

According to the above rules Macheteman in the same round, having spent a Move action, can go to his own Onset:

Pikeman:W /1 /2 /3 /4 /5 /6 /7M/8O
Machete:2O/1M/ W

But doing so, means he went BEYOND the pikeman's Onset Range with more than 2.5 ft step suffering an AoO!
Since things are as they are, it is more convenient for the Macaheteman to go into his own Melee, since he will suffer an AoO in any case.

 

[LucaCherstich]

Sorry If I keep on adding things, but my brain sometimes does not seems to stop!
Today's thinking is about spears.
Converting things from the Codex to Conan is not always straightforward.
Usually Conan Weapons use slightly higher damages than Codex & normal ogl (e.g. 1d8 instead of 1d6, 1d10 instead of 1d8), but variation can be also obtained with higher AP stat or wider Crit threat ranges.

So, my methedology is to take a Conan weapon (identifiable also in the Codex) as a base and make tiny variations for similar weapons (usually Codex variations for triple stats are enough).

In this way Spears are problematic.
And a further problem is that I've not seen in the Codex any change in Reach rules and how they reac to Onset & Melee range (see my post above).

So, Conan spears are:

- Hunting Spear (Simple, One-handed, dmg 1d8, AP1, Range Incr 10 ft).
- War Spear (Simple, Two-handed, REACH and Finesse weapon, dmg 1d10, AP 2, cannot be thrown).
I have always felt that such division in two was irrealistic, so I created a midway spear, which I just call "Spear":
- Spear (Simple, One-handed, Finesse weapon, dmg 1d10, AP 2, Range Incr 10 ft).

SO, converting Codex Spears into Conan ones I've tries this grouping:

Conan's Hunting Spear (one handed, 1d8 dmg, can be thrown)
nothing

Conan's Spear (mine, unofficial)(usually one handed, 1d10 dmg, Finesse, can be thrown)
Spear
Balanced Spear (Cannot be thrown)
Yari
Hewing Spear (One-Hand-and-Half, maybe NOT a finesse weapon)

Conan's War Spear(usually two handed, 1d10 damage, cannot be thrown, Reach Weapon, Finesse Weapon)
Ahlspeiss
Spetum/Ranseur/Partisan

TWO NOTES:
- I use triple stats modifications for two-handed and HH weapons held with 1 hand.
- I allow the Warrior's Companion "Spearman" feat which allows one to use a 2-handed spear with 1 hand if he has a shield in teh other hand.

My only doubts are about the Hewing spear which I do not know wether to fit in the Spear or the Warspear class:
- Hewing Spear: can it be thrown?
- Hewing Spear: Should we consider it as a Reach Weapon? I suspect not, from the description it looks like a shorter thing than the Ahlspeiss.

And furthermore:
- Ahlspeiss: can it be thrown? I suspect not easily.

 

[galloglaich]

Really any spear can be thrown, even swords, axes and maces can be thrown. The question is how far. You could certainly throw and ahelespeiess at short range, in fact I'm sure it would be devestating.

But to throw more than a short distance (ten or fifteen feet or so) you need a spear that is relatively balanced, and lacking in extra pieces like lugs, hooks and roundels and etc.

I would just give the heavier or more complex spears a 5'range increment.

A hewing spear is not necessarily heavy; some are, some aren't, but it's probably pretty close to the war spear. All it really means is a spear with a large enough blade to cut with... and some likelyhood of a crossbar. You can give the non crossbar version range increment 10' but less Defense.

G.

 

[LucaCherstich]

I like your suggestion and I think I'll give a 5ft range incr. to all the 2-handed spears.
However, the main dividing factor to me is What is and What isn't a Reach Weapon.
A reach weapon is something which cannot attack nearby, adjacent enemies, but it can attack farther (10 ft).
Pikes are special (20 ft reach).
In this sense, do you think that it is feasible to have:

NOT Reach
Spear
Balanced Spear
Yari (Some have Reach)
Hewing Spear

Reach (10 ft)
Conan's Warspear
Ahlspeiss
Spetum/Ranseur/Partisan

Or should I add the Hewing Spear to the Reach Weapons?

Since I use 2.5 grid I'm also start thinking about making new reaches (7.5 and 12.5 ft), but I fear the game would become too complicated, and weapon classification too ramified and specific.

In any case, what do you think of my Reach rules above?
Regarding the fight between people with different Onset &Melee ranges (Reach vs NonReach) they can be summarized as in this way.
You consider Onset & Melee squares:
1) your Onset & Melee for the sake of Triple stats
2) your enemy's Onset & Melee for the sake of spending a Move Action for passing from your enemy's Onset to your enemy's Melee.
After that you can go at your own Onset or Melee (what you like the most)
2a) If you do not want to spend a Move action at your enemy's ranges (no.2 above), you'll suffer an AoO as you go into your enemy's Melee.
You still must spend a Move action to go from your Onset to your Melee.