[CONAN] Interesting Weapon & Combat Model

[LucaCherstich]

For the moment I think I'll use "Proposal 1" but, I'm trying to find a way to mimic what you said above about spearman vs Machete and closing ranges.

PROPOSAL 3 "Closing Ranges & Free 2.5 steps"

NEW RULES are in red, all the rest are obvious consequences of applying them to d20.

PREMISES: Normal Conan/d20 rules (NOTHING NEW):
- AoO provoked by moving out of a threatened square with anything more than a 5ft (or 2.5 ft) step.
- When you do a Full Attack you can make a free 5ft step (or two 2.5 ft steps). The free step cannot be done together with a Move Action

BASIC NEW RULES (trying to keep Codex's feel):
- use 2.5 ft grid (5ft reach: 1st square Melee, 2nd square Onset).
- Onset bonus is used for standard attacks from Onset Range
- Melee bonus is used for standard and full attacks from Melee Range.
- If you start a full attack at Onset Range you are FORCED to spend a 2.5 step forward after the first Onset attack, to close into Melee range and make the other attacks at Melee Range.

EVOLUTIONS (compromise Conan/Codex):
- If you want to make a Full Attack remaining at Onset range, without making the 2.5 ft step to close at Melee, you can do it, but with a price.
Every attack you fail grants your enemy the IMMEDIATE possibility of spending a 2.5 ft step forward to get nearby you (into melee), or backward to get out of your range.
The enemy spend this 2.5 ft in the middle of your full attack.
This 2.5 ft step is subtracted from your enemy's 5ft free step OR Move action (according to what he will do in his own turn)

OBVIOUS CONSIDERATION:
- On the other hand, if machete-man charges directly into Melee Range (over-passing his enemy's Onset square with a Move or Charge Action) he'll suffer an AoO, as per normal d20 rules regarding leaving threatened squares with Move actions.

REACH WEAPONS:
Nothing really changes if you use both the above rules AND the normal Reach weapon rules.
The next one is just an EXAMPLE of how the above rules apply.
I'm not putting new rules but just explaining how the "Closing Ranges" rulset works with normal Reach.
Here is the example of a warspear (10 ft Reach).
ABCDE
"A" is the warspear wielder.
"D" is his own Melee Range
"E" is his own Onset Range. His enemy (machete man) is here.
WarSpearman want to make a full attack at Onset without going into Melee, but he fails his first attack.
Machete Man gets the opportunity to spend a 2.5, so he goes from E to D.
Warspearman is now obliged to finish his attacks of the full attack option at his own Melee Range (D).
"D" is now still out of range for Machete-man, he needs to get to C or D to attack Warspearman (A).
Whatever he does, he has already spent 2.5 ft (to be subtracted from Move action or from 5ft step).
He has 2 options:
OPTION 1 - Make another 2.5 ft step into C (his own Onset Range), NOT suffering an AoO and attack from his own Onset (C) with a standard action. He cannot make a normal full attack since he cannot spend another 2.5 ft, unless he wants to do teh above procedure (and if he fails he give spearman a free 2.5 ft step back).
OPTION 2: make a Move action (-2.5 ft) to go from D to B, suffering an AoO as he exits D, and make a standard attack at his own Melee (B).

NATURAL REACH
This is easy too.
Only the extreme external squares are Onset.
The rest is Melee.
So a Monster with 10 ft Reach:
ABCDE
"A" is the monster,
BCD is Melee
E is Onset.

 

[galloglaich]

I think those movement rules are again, too complicated.

Maybe one other alternative would be to add in a couple of the Martial Feats as either Feats or Maneuvers, and then put them into skill-trees which Fighter types could pick as they level up, the way Rangers pick between two weapon fighting or archery in the SRD. So you would get different feats at different levels, one at 1st, one at 3rd, one at 5th and etc.

So for example you could make

1) A spear -fighting track with point control, advanced point control, slip-thrust, distance fighting, sidestep, half-staff and pollaxe-fighting, at different levels. Plus maybe a feat to allow multiple attacks at onset if you really want that.

2) A wrestling / unarmed track which grants ringen, kampfringen, murder strikes, dance de la rue, graceful rush, bind and batter, and grapple and pin

3) A shield-fighting track with shield-fighting, shield slap, shield smash, shield wrench, bind-and-strike, and counterstroke

4) A two handed sword fighting track with false-edge cut, mastercut, twitch-cut, nachriesen, half-sword fighting, mutierin, ringen-am-schwert
and winden

5) A short sword fighting track with defanging the snake, graceful rush, tactical movement, hand-checking, situational awareness, contra tempo, and feint

and etc.

These could be added retro-actively to existing characters.

Or more simply you could just take a few less of these and apply them more generally to soldiers, warriors etc.

G.

 

[LucaCherstich]

I like what you say, with free feat chains, but I really do not want to conanize more feats for the moment.
I know that "adding feats for free" is OK for many old players, but, at least for the moment, I do not want the impact of Codex to be that heavy on my PC recording sheet.
Maybe later, when They'll get more used to Onset & Melee ranges, we can do something like that, but not now.

Regarding PROPOSAL 3:
I'm not sure my Proposal 3 is really that complicated.
It is certainly less realistic than Codex, but it is more Conan.
It's just saying that:

1) Full Attacks starting at Onset should make first Attack at Onset and second (and third) attacks at Melee with a 2.5 ft step.
A similar movement from Onset into Melee is described by you in the Codes.


2) "if you want to make all the attacks of your full attack at Onset and you fail, your enemy gets a 2.5 ft step forward to get closer into melee, or a 2.5 ft step backward to get out of your range!
Which is just what you were suggesting above when you described Machete vs Spear, and Machete-man exploiting Spearman errors.
Only experts can keep on making Full attacks completely at Onset (low-level fighters with low BAB, will more often fail and let enemies get nearer or farther).

All the rest are just logical consequeces of adapting that rule to d20 & 2.5 ft grid.
I have not even changed normal d20 Reach rules!

 

[galloglaich]

It's works for me Luca

G.

 

[LucaCherstich]

Galloglaich, I think I'll use this proposal 3.
For the moment I would also like to discuss other ideas I like from the Codex.
For example:
TWO-HANDED WEAPONS USED WITH 1 HAND
I'm interested in your table "Using weapons two handed vs one handed table" in the Codex page 52.
I understand the changes in triple stats....but I'm dubious about the use of 2-handed weapons with just 1 hand.
Can it be done with EVERY 2-handed weapon?
I mean, using a normally 2-handed Ahlspeiss with your right hand while holding a shield in your left hand sounds reasonable and really OK...
..But is it reasonable to use a heavy Zweihander, bardiche or a long pike with just one hand?
I'm telling it since, if the penalty is just a -2 do Melee/Defense bonus, high-level "power players" with high BAB could come up asking for some very stupid double-zweihander 2 weapon combat...
My idea is to:
- allow using a two-handed weapon with 1 hand ONLY is the offhand is used for a shield or for keeping control of a horse while riding, but NOT for holding an off-hand weapon.
- Not using the Str bonus to dmg if a two-handed weapon is used one-handed. Str malus still applies.

NOTE: If one has the Conan's Spearman feat (from Warrior's Companion) he can add his Str bonus to dmg even in this case.

 

[galloglaich]

To be honest the Codex was never really designed for high-level "power play" so I'm not sure how to handle that. I don't think it's realistic to hold a pike in each hand, that is for sure... but you can swing a zweihander or a pollaxe in one hand, briefly and with poor defensive ability and very little follow-up. I would just use the built in SRD penalties against two-weapon fighting, and say the Feats or Conan equivalents don't count for weapons size L or larger. In the Codex I require that weapons be of uneven size for the two weapon feats to work, since historically that is usually how it worked: a rapier with a dagger, a katana with a wakisashe etc.

G.

 

[LucaCherstich]

I accept yor triple stats mods table but with the following note on 2-handed weapons held 1 hand.
The last entry below ("Spear") is made to take into account Conan's Feat "Spearman" (for Warrior's Companion) which allowed people to hold 2-handed spears with one hand while holding a shield.
Since it can now be done by everybody, I wanted to give that feat this advantage.

NOTE:
Using a two-handed weapons with one hand is difficult. So use the following rules:
- If a two-handed weapon fighter uses a two-handed weapon together with any other weapon (but not shield) he will suffer the maximum penalties for two weapon combat (-6/-6). Two-weapons feats and proficiencies do not count, and light off-hand weapons are not considered light.
- A pike cannot be used with one hand
- Other two-handed weapons but spears (e.g. greatswords, bardiches, etc.) held with one hand cannot be used to make full attacks but only standard attacks.
- Two-handed spears (e.g. Ahlspeiss, Warspears, etc.) can be held with one hand together with a shield and be used to make full attacks. Those who have the "Spearman" do not suffer the -2 to Melee and Defense.

 

[galloglaich]

yeah that makes sense.

G.

 

[LucaCherstich]

Thank you Galloglaich, for keeping on answering!
I'm really excited about many of the ideas in your Codex, and how they could make Conan rpg so much more fun!
This time I'm really intrigued by your "Piercing Critical Hits and Missile Weapons" optional rules.
I think it really makes Bows & CrossBows deadly as they were in reality.
The only problem I have is that these things in Conan will happen less often than in Codex!
In Conan you cannot spend 4 dices from your Martial Pool and raise the possibility of a Critical!
Furthermore I like also your other option rule on augmenting the "Critical Damage from Missiles" at Close Range from 1d6 to 1d10.
I MAKE HERE ONE RULE TO MIMIC BOTH OPTIONAL RULES!
So my Fix, this time is the following:

- All the Ranged Weapons have their Critical Threats Ranges improved by +1 in the Point Blank Range (30 ft). Example Spear Critical Threat "x2" will become "19-20/x2."
- Ranged Weapons whose Range Increments is of 30 ft or more (essentially Bows, Crossbows and Slings) have their Crit Ranges improved by +2 for the first 30 ft, and, if their first range increment is greater than 30 ft, +1 until the end of their first Range Increment.

NOTES:
- This increment is NOT multiplied by Improved Critical feat. The increment is added AFTER the multiplication.
- For the continuous damage from weapon stuck in a body use this official rule from the "To the Hilt" official Manoeuvre: "A character with a weapon stuck in him sustains 1d6 damage every time he takes a move, standard or full-round action."
- Heal DC and Dmg by failure in the Codex still apply.
- Feats which increase the Point Blank Range (e.g. Eagle Eye from Hyboria's Finest) increases also the range of this +2 or +1 to Critical Threat Range.

 

[galloglaich]

I think that is a pretty good way to handle it, simple and effective, it will make people more nervous about high-energy missile weapons as they should be. I think it should apply to most if not all missile weapons though not just bows and crossbows. Inside their first range increment, a javelin at ten feet has amazingly good penetration. Better than a lot of guns do.

The impaled missile weapon thing can be touchy for some players. I use it in the Codex but I think the Codex is a bit more grim and gritty than Conan usually is from what y'all have said in this thread. So I would just caution you that it depends on your group, some people won't like it especially if you are into 'high level power play' where the PCs are meant to be sort of invulnerable like the way a lot of people play DnD these days. Having an arrow stuck in you really slows you down.

G.

 

[LucaCherstich]

Well...there is one single factor making Conan VERY GRITTY: Massive Damage at 20 Dmg points.
The Fort DC for that is usually steep, 10 + 1/2 dmg, so at least DC 20, but often more than that.
Without considering the augmented Dmg dice for weapons (shortswords deal 1d8 dmg instead of 1d6 ) and the lack of common magic.
I can assure you that playing Conan means killing more PCs than normal d20.

BREAKING ARROWS
...And regarding "Gritty Stuff" I always asked myself why movies show people breaking arrows stuck into their bodies, leaving the points inside to keep on fighting.
I do not know wether this is just "Hollywood stuff", but I'm thinking to add this possibility.
If one does not want (or cannot) make a Heal Check to take the arrow off, one can try to break it off.
This means making a Str or Cos check (DC 10) as Standard Action.
With a Full action you can break 2 arrows.
FAIL: You Suffer the equivalent of making a wrong Heal Cheack and the arrow is still inside.
SUCCESS: You break the arrow. The arrow will now deal only 1d3 dmg per round rather than 1d6.

 

[Supplement Four]

Many times, the patient is better off leaving the arrow inside the body rather than tearing through more tissue and doing more damage ripping it out.

Your rules should have a "fumble" or something like, "If the Heal check fails by 5+ points, then do damage from the arrow a second time as it is pulled out.."

Something like that.

 

[Supplement Four]

Considering the Codex's Onset and Melee ranges: Couldn't we just place a marker under a figure to indicate Onset range and still use the Conan 5' grid?

For example, you've got two figures in base-to-base contact. If one of them is doubled up, resting on a counter or marker, then the two figures are at Onset range.

If the two figures do not have a marker, then they're at Melee range.




If you're not using figures (for example, many times I will use stick pins on a large sheet of graph paper, using a black marker to draw, all of this on a cork board), then how about just keeping a range tally as you would for hit points or nonlethal damage?

You could have a simple column that looks like this...

O
M
O
M
O

Looking at that, I know, quickly, that range has changed 4 times and we're currently at Onset range.

There's no reason why I couldn't just make a column for each fight, writing it on the side of the graph paper (if the marker idea isn't used, above).

This way, both Conan and Codex range requirements are meshed together without changing the other.





Also: I suggest changing the names of the Codex Reach and Speed weapon modifiers because any d20 game, Conan included, has other uses for the terms "Reach" and "Speed".

From here on out, let's call them the "Onset" modifier and the "Melee" modifier.

 

[LucaCherstich]

Many times, the patient is better off leaving the arrow inside the body rather than tearing through more tissue and doing more damage ripping it out.

Your rules should have a "fumble" or something like, "If the Heal check fails by 5+ points, then do damage from the arrow a second time as it is pulled out.."

Something like that.

The "Break arrows" rules above was just a rough alternative to a good Heal Check.
With the Heal Check, as per normal Codex rules, If you fail the Heal check you receive decent damage!
A failed Heal check with an arrow deals 1d10 dmg without the need of making further fumble!
Please, check the table in Codex Martialis page 58.

From here on out, let's call them the "Onset" modifier and the "Melee" modifier.

I've called them Onset and Melee modifiers since the begininning!

S4, I think in visual terms we can use both 2.5 and 5ft scale, as long as you find a good way to do it in 5ft scale, if you like the marker method.

Rather than regarding visual terms, I'm more concerned of mechanics.
I think my proposal no.3 (see my post above) is, at least in part, the best solution for mimicking in Conan how Onset & Melee should work.
In 5ft scale you should find a solution for those who want to keep on making Full Attacks at Onset, for example spearmen and bardiche-wielders.
And this should be a solution allowing the opponent to exploit the spearman's errors to close to melee or step back from the fight.
Making a full attack at Onset without going into Melee should be difficult or risky for the spearman.

ADAPTING "MY PROPOSAL 3" at 5ft scale:
AFter all the discussion I think my "proposal 3" is the best solution, but you could adapt it to 5ft scale.
Maybe if the Spearman fails an attack the enemy can remove spearman's marker and declare that they are at Melee, or spend an immediate 5ft back, even if it is not his turn, to negate further spearman's attacks.
Off course that 5ft scale should be subtracted from his movement when his turn comes.
ANyway, I still prefer 2.5 ft scale since it allows for more detail and tactics (2.5 ft step, levaing you with anotehr 2.5 fet step, instead than wasting a whole 5ft step).

AND REGARDING BREAKING ARROWS LEAVING POINTS INSIDE (SEE ABOVE):
This is a rough alternative to Heal...but do you think this is realistic?
Or just some stupid stuff from Hollywood movies?

AND, again, REGARDING REMOVING ARROWS
What action an Heal check like that should require?
What about a Full-Action to remove a single Arrow?
I suspect a standard action should be too quick to pull out an arrow without damaging the victim.

 

[galloglaich]

I think there is a chart in the Codex core rules with Heal skill check DC'ss for removing arrrows, isn't there?

Using a marker sounds too kludgy /complicated to me. I think you are overthinking it again. I think you had it sorted out pretty well before.

G.

 

[LucaCherstich]

I do not like tokens too. But it's just S4 who really does not like 2.5 ft scale!

Regarding arrows:
I was always refering to that chart but:

1) that chart does not say how much time you need to make that Heal Check: my proposal is "At least 1 full round action per arrow", or maybe even more! I think this is something delicate to be done.
How much time do you think it needs? I suspect arrows to be easier than bulltes: maybe 10 minutes for a sling bullet?

2) What if somebody does not have Heal and he is in a rush?
Conan is a gritty game, but it is also a game of epic feats.
And all of us like our heroes tearing their flesh pulling out arrows!!
If one does not have time to do a proper Heal check, my proposal is:
- He can pull out the arrow with a standard action and suffer the damage in the "fail" column.
- He can break the arrow (as we see people do in movies). But is it realistic? I suspect one needs to do a Cos or Str check (standard action) DC 10 to do that (DC 20 for javelins) but the points will still be inside, even if they'll move less (so the dmg per action will become 1d3 instead than 1d6).

 

[Supplement Four]

I think you had it sorted out pretty well before.

I'm not crazy about the markers either, but I insist on a 5' square scale. The "list" isn't too bad--that would work, like keeping track of hit points.

Still...really don't want to keep track of anything.

I actually did come up with an entirely new system for Onset/Melee range, something that works with the 5' scale but completely changes how the Onset/Melee modifiers work.

If I get time, maybe I'll share it with you guys.

 

[Supplement Four]

I've got it!

Put the figure in the square adjacent its foe if at melee range. Put the figure on the line, not in a square, if at Onset range. For all other measurements (charge, spell radius, whatever), the figure is considered in the 5' square. We only put the figure on the line to denote Onset range.

 

[LucaCherstich]

S4, what you propose is crazy for me, or at least for my style of playing.
I'm used to epic battle scenes with many participants to combat, as per pure Sword & Sorcery tradition.
I prefer 2.5 ft scale since it always make thing clear about who is at Onset with whom.
Any other system, at least to me and my gaming style, is pure chaos with complicated combat using the Onset & Melee ranges.
Especially if you consider that in crowded battles you happen to be in range with somebody else, even if you were not directly fighting him the previous round.
Sometimes the battle is so thick and over-crowded than even if you drop an enemy dead, you happen to be in melee with the enemy who was nearby (not behind) the other one, without an opportunity to be at Onset.
Think about the mess of two Greek Hoplite phalanxes, or Saxon Shield Walls or Baroque Pikemen regiments or Roman Cohorts AFTER the first clash and AFTER their spears are all broken and they are all mixed one with the other and everybody is so near, with not so much space, that Onset & Melee in relation to different enemies are so difficult to ascertain....

I know that 2.5 ft scale can nicely deal with such situations, since I've already tested 2.5 ft scale in my game and it worked nicely with complicated combats, not making them more complicated than before I adopted Onset & Melee.
Do you want a proof?
Please make a playtest!

Try to organize a combat of:
- 12 Cimmerians: 4 with Reach Warspears (always trying to remain at Onset), 4 with Battleaxes and 4 with hunting bows (always trying to stay out of people to shoot down enemies and not provoke AoO).
Versus
- 4 Man-Brutes (natural Reach 10), 1 sorcerer (trying to stay out of combat to cast spells), 2 panthers (always trying to bite and trigger their Improved Grapples), 5 thieves (always looking for flanking) and 4 thugs armed with shortswords (so always looking to close at Melee).
Put the combat in a complex background, maybe a ruin with obstacles everywhere.
Put the Cimmerians in the middle and the enemies spread everywhere between the obstacles.
Can you easily manage such a combat with your system AND still considering Onset & Melee?

PLEASE NOTE: you must keep track also not just or relationships 1-to-1 combats, but also of whom you happen to be in range BY CHANCE during the complex evolutions of a combat.

Then try it again with 2.5 ft scale.
Which scale is clearer with Onset & Melee ranges?
If for you 5ft scale is better, you are a genius, and I'm just a dumb.
Maybe it's just me and my dumbness, but, if we include Onset & Melee, I find the whole thing difficult to follow with your "between the lines" system or normal 5ft scale.

Paradoxically speaking, I think that, in these cases with Onset/Melee ranges, a non-miniatures system works better that a rough 5ft grid.
With no grid & miniatures you must always trust your Game Master.
But if you use miniatures and a Grid, you must use the 2.5 ft grid to indicate Onset & Melee.
Since a grid makes everything clear to everybody and, if you do not want complaints, you need 2.5 ft scale to indicate who is at Onset/Melee ranges with whom.
Miniatures & Grid are used to make everything clear...but what's the point of a grid (5ft) which is not clear about something which is now a key factor as Onset/Melee ranges ? (if you use Codex rules).
5ft was a scale not conceived for Rules on Onset & Melee ranges!
And what's the point of putting a miniature between squares in a tightly occupied battlescene?
It only makes more confusion!
When you start moving miniatures in complicated battle scenes somebody should scream "Please, Change you scale or remove Onset/Melee!!"

AGAIN ON ARROWS:
What do you think about the "pulling arrows" (rough Alternative to Heal)considerations in my posts above?

 

[Supplement Four]

I'm used to epic battle scenes with many participants to combat, as per pure Sword & Sorcery tradition.

Well, I'm keeping the 5 foot scale. Any huge battle, I'll probably use one of the mass combat rule sets.

I do have an idea of turning the Onset range from the Codex into a type of attack, similar in style to the finesse attack.

Characters always use Onset mod for the first attack (or the first round--undecided). From then on out, they use the Melee mod. 5' scale.

But.... A spearman (or any charcter) may try an Onset attack (or a finesse attack, or a regular melee attack).

I haven't quite got it worked out, mechanically, but it's an interesting approach, I think to the problem.