Conan MRQ
- Thread starter Troll66
- Start date
MRQ is a variation on the Basic Roleplaying System (BRP); basically, a d100 system.
A MRQ Conan game would have a wider appeal than just MRQ fans, fans of BRP would also be likely to snap it up because it could be easily converted to BRP, or mixed and matched to taste - BRP is very modular.
Over the years, I have also made inquires about a MRQ/Conan and there seemed to be real hope a year or so ago, but there seems to be some kind of problem with Mongoose releasing Conan using two different systems - a licensing issue I think.
I'm still hopeful that Mongoose will eventually put out at least one MRQ/Conan book (like they're slipping in the Traveller/B5 books in at the end of their B5 run), but it seems it won't be until they decide to stop doing Conan d20. I've decided to just patiently wait it out.
A MRQ Conan game would have a wider appeal than just MRQ fans, fans of BRP would also be likely to snap it up because it could be easily converted to BRP, or mixed and matched to taste - BRP is very modular.
Over the years, I have also made inquires about a MRQ/Conan and there seemed to be real hope a year or so ago, but there seems to be some kind of problem with Mongoose releasing Conan using two different systems - a licensing issue I think.
I'm still hopeful that Mongoose will eventually put out at least one MRQ/Conan book (like they're slipping in the Traveller/B5 books in at the end of their B5 run), but it seems it won't be until they decide to stop doing Conan d20. I've decided to just patiently wait it out.
Clovenhoof
Mongoose
What's so great about MRQ/BRP? This is not a rhetoric question.
I mean, I don't really know the system well. I just played RQ once (don't know which edition) and found it horrible. However, what was really horrible was definitely the GM, so tbh I can't say a lot about the quality of the system.
I'm going to look at the SRD right now, but before I comment on it, why don't you say what you find so great about RQ?
I mean, I don't really know the system well. I just played RQ once (don't know which edition) and found it horrible. However, what was really horrible was definitely the GM, so tbh I can't say a lot about the quality of the system.
I'm going to look at the SRD right now, but before I comment on it, why don't you say what you find so great about RQ?
I remember the Basic Roleplaying System, with the Elric! and CoC games (and the GORE retro-clone). For the longest of time, I never know it was called the "Basic Roleplaying System." I always called it the "Chaosium System", as I always just figured "Basic Roleplaying" was the other "basic" game! LOL
So, do anyone know what major changes (if any) Mongoose made with the system? And if one already got the old RQ or Elric rulebooks, would it be worth getting the new books?
So, do anyone know what major changes (if any) Mongoose made with the system? And if one already got the old RQ or Elric rulebooks, would it be worth getting the new books?
To my mind, and I speak from experience of Chaosium RQ, there would be some big problems. So unless these things have changed in a way that erases the problem:
1- Damage (part 1). RQ characters are fragile things. If you are really big and tough, you'll have Con 20 and Siz 20 and thus have 20 hit points (average Con and Siz). An average fighting opponent will have a weapon doing d8+1 damage and he'll have a d4 damage bonus. Three average hits and our putative Conan is pushing up the daisies. Unlike in d20 and unlike in Howard.
2- Damage (part 2). To be a real damage monster is easy in RQ. Just have Str 21 and Siz 20. Okay that's quite hard to get right off the bat but it will let you have a mighty +2d6 damage bonus. Your friend with Str 20, Siz 20 will have a mere +d6 damage bonus... exactly the same as a Str 17 Siz 16 chap and not too much better than a Str 13 Siz 12 person who gets +d4... Now bear in mind that even the toughest hero or villain is going to have about 20 hit points at most. If you are lashing out weapon+2d6 every hit then god help the opposition. Especially if you use:
3- Hit Locations. Okay, your 20 hit point combat monster... he has 7 hit points in his head... if he gets hit in his head then it's goodnight Vienna... Even his mighty torso only has a fraction of his total hit points. If Conan were to move to this system it would need to do away with (or ignore) hit locations).
4- Parry/Dodge. Opposed rolls... You can get very long combats between good fighters... say foes with 90-95% in their chosen weapon attack and parry.
5- Multiple foes. RQ stinks in this respect. Because of the way parrying and dodging work, three relatively weak foes will give a weapon master a very hard time indeed. Not very Conan to me.
Now I loved Chaosium RQ. Played it for years. It was brilliant. In a setting where low level magic was ubiquitous and mid level magic pretty common. Not the Hyborian Age.
Combat is just as clunky as d20, maybe clunkier if you burden yourself with the fatigue rules, more lethal and needs more dice rolling and probably more record keeping.
So I'd like to know how these problems (with respect to it being suited to a Conan game, it's a great system for Glorantha) have been addressed by Mongoose. the Avalon Hill version that I played for a time after the rules changed from the original Chaosium rather exacerbated them to my mind.
1- Damage (part 1). RQ characters are fragile things. If you are really big and tough, you'll have Con 20 and Siz 20 and thus have 20 hit points (average Con and Siz). An average fighting opponent will have a weapon doing d8+1 damage and he'll have a d4 damage bonus. Three average hits and our putative Conan is pushing up the daisies. Unlike in d20 and unlike in Howard.
2- Damage (part 2). To be a real damage monster is easy in RQ. Just have Str 21 and Siz 20. Okay that's quite hard to get right off the bat but it will let you have a mighty +2d6 damage bonus. Your friend with Str 20, Siz 20 will have a mere +d6 damage bonus... exactly the same as a Str 17 Siz 16 chap and not too much better than a Str 13 Siz 12 person who gets +d4... Now bear in mind that even the toughest hero or villain is going to have about 20 hit points at most. If you are lashing out weapon+2d6 every hit then god help the opposition. Especially if you use:
3- Hit Locations. Okay, your 20 hit point combat monster... he has 7 hit points in his head... if he gets hit in his head then it's goodnight Vienna... Even his mighty torso only has a fraction of his total hit points. If Conan were to move to this system it would need to do away with (or ignore) hit locations).
4- Parry/Dodge. Opposed rolls... You can get very long combats between good fighters... say foes with 90-95% in their chosen weapon attack and parry.
5- Multiple foes. RQ stinks in this respect. Because of the way parrying and dodging work, three relatively weak foes will give a weapon master a very hard time indeed. Not very Conan to me.
Now I loved Chaosium RQ. Played it for years. It was brilliant. In a setting where low level magic was ubiquitous and mid level magic pretty common. Not the Hyborian Age.
Combat is just as clunky as d20, maybe clunkier if you burden yourself with the fatigue rules, more lethal and needs more dice rolling and probably more record keeping.
So I'd like to know how these problems (with respect to it being suited to a Conan game, it's a great system for Glorantha) have been addressed by Mongoose. the Avalon Hill version that I played for a time after the rules changed from the original Chaosium rather exacerbated them to my mind.
Clovenhoof
Mongoose
Sounds like a must-miss.
I have looked at the SRD now.
Hit locations suck. I used to be all for them in my earlier days as simulationist whippersnapper, but now I thoroughly hate them. Why would anyone bother with them? If you want a "realistic" game, it doesn't f#&%$ing matter where the blow lands; you get hit, you are out, end of story.
I rolled a 16 to hit, 11 for damage, and I don't want to hear how it dies.
Active Defense / Opposed Rolls is another thing I don't want in a game anymore. It draws out one-on-one combat to no end. Or, in the case of absurd (sorry, "realistic") damage-to-resilience ratios as you stated above, makes every round an all-or-nothing venture.
Moreover, I saw that the system is actually table-based, and if there's an absolutely uncontested Number One Thing I Hate In RPGs, it's tables. They bog down play and drag the action to a grinding halt.
That's what you always get in systems with limited parry attempts, be it this one, or The Dark Eye, or TRoS, or whatever. Two guys gang up on one and the game is over. And no, it's not "realistic". It is just lame. And definitely not suitable for a heroic gaming style.
And on the other hand, RQ seems to completely lack Special Abilities of any sort. No feats, no edges, no classes that could give you special features. So you get all the clunkiness without the least bit of diversity.
Thanks, I'll pass.
Sorry for the rant.
I have looked at the SRD now.
Demetrio said:
Hit locations suck. I used to be all for them in my earlier days as simulationist whippersnapper, but now I thoroughly hate them. Why would anyone bother with them? If you want a "realistic" game, it doesn't f#&%$ing matter where the blow lands; you get hit, you are out, end of story.
I rolled a 16 to hit, 11 for damage, and I don't want to hear how it dies.
Active Defense / Opposed Rolls is another thing I don't want in a game anymore. It draws out one-on-one combat to no end. Or, in the case of absurd (sorry, "realistic") damage-to-resilience ratios as you stated above, makes every round an all-or-nothing venture.
Moreover, I saw that the system is actually table-based, and if there's an absolutely uncontested Number One Thing I Hate In RPGs, it's tables. They bog down play and drag the action to a grinding halt.
That's what you always get in systems with limited parry attempts, be it this one, or The Dark Eye, or TRoS, or whatever. Two guys gang up on one and the game is over. And no, it's not "realistic". It is just lame. And definitely not suitable for a heroic gaming style.
And on the other hand, RQ seems to completely lack Special Abilities of any sort. No feats, no edges, no classes that could give you special features. So you get all the clunkiness without the least bit of diversity.
Thanks, I'll pass.
Sorry for the rant.
Chaosium RQ certainly wasn't (except hit location tables but I don't think you mean that).
Gloranthan magic made the difference. Protection spells made characters more robust in combat, healing spells allowed those nasty wounds to be healed very quickly. Most pcs I encountered were 'defensive builds' - or they didn't survive.
As I say I'd welcome signs that MRQ had 'dealt' with the issues that would stop RQ/BRP being Conan friendly. Ignoring hit locations is one way to deal with part of one problem- but it doesn't address the relative fragility of characters compared to d20 and Howard.
But I'd far rather that Mongoose simple concentrated on solving the issues of Conan d20 - because it has some that need sddressing rather than (possibly) switching systems and ending up with many people pleased, many people upset, some people indifferent but just as many (different) play issues thrown up by the switch.
"What's so great about MRQ/BRP?" That's a tough question really, since a lot of it has to do with personal taste. I think that's reflected in the posts after the question was posed. The answers tend to show a preference for d20 rather than any problem with BRP, not surprising since this is the d20 Conan forum.
I don't want to get drawn into a system vs. system debate and so I will refrain from knocking d20. However, BRP could do Conan games just fine, if MRQ/BRP can do Elric, it can do Conan.
Things I like about BRP (I'm not very familiar with MRQ):
1) No Classes and/or class abilities
2) No Levels
3) No Feats (although MRQ does tack on feat-like abilities)
4) Skill based characters
5) Percentiles are very easy and intuitive for all players to understand
6) Hit points are set on physical characteristics and don't increase due to skill level
7) Hit points are fairly low, any blow you fail to defend against could really hurt or even kill you. This avoids "chip away" combat or a situation where characters are immune to great harm by the first few blows - Conan d20 uses a lower massive damage threshold to deal with this - not needed in BRP.
Other things I like about BRP requires a bit of more experience with the system then those that only know RQ or MRQ may have. The new BRP book by Chaosium addresses any and all concerns posted here regarding BRP being able to run Conan, it being the Big Book of BRP knowledge drawing off years of BRP games.
1) Don't like area hit locations - then don't use them. Hit Points equal Con+Siz/2, or just Con+Size for the PC's if you want them a little more heroic.
2) High Attack vs. High Parry got you down - let the attacker reduce his attack percentage as a feint, the defender has to make the parry at the same penalty (there's a lot of ways to deal with this, that's just one of my favorites)
3) Want your heros to be able to make multiple parries, reduce the penalties on multiple parries or have really high skills to begin with.
As I stated in my first post on this thread, it doesn't seem that Mongoose intends to abandon d20 for Conan any time soon (if ever), so the d20 Conan fans can just relax and enjoy what they have. I still hope that Mongoose eventually prints a Conan book that will appeal to MRQ/BRP fans, which isn't all that outrageous of an idea since MRQ is a house system. I think a MRQ would sell well even amongst BRP fans that don't like MRQ - again, due to the ease of conversion (and I still want to see Vincent D's MRQ Hyborian Age magic system).
I don't want to get drawn into a system vs. system debate and so I will refrain from knocking d20. However, BRP could do Conan games just fine, if MRQ/BRP can do Elric, it can do Conan.
Things I like about BRP (I'm not very familiar with MRQ):
1) No Classes and/or class abilities
2) No Levels
3) No Feats (although MRQ does tack on feat-like abilities)
4) Skill based characters
5) Percentiles are very easy and intuitive for all players to understand
6) Hit points are set on physical characteristics and don't increase due to skill level
7) Hit points are fairly low, any blow you fail to defend against could really hurt or even kill you. This avoids "chip away" combat or a situation where characters are immune to great harm by the first few blows - Conan d20 uses a lower massive damage threshold to deal with this - not needed in BRP.
Other things I like about BRP requires a bit of more experience with the system then those that only know RQ or MRQ may have. The new BRP book by Chaosium addresses any and all concerns posted here regarding BRP being able to run Conan, it being the Big Book of BRP knowledge drawing off years of BRP games.
1) Don't like area hit locations - then don't use them. Hit Points equal Con+Siz/2, or just Con+Size for the PC's if you want them a little more heroic.
2) High Attack vs. High Parry got you down - let the attacker reduce his attack percentage as a feint, the defender has to make the parry at the same penalty (there's a lot of ways to deal with this, that's just one of my favorites)
3) Want your heros to be able to make multiple parries, reduce the penalties on multiple parries or have really high skills to begin with.
As I stated in my first post on this thread, it doesn't seem that Mongoose intends to abandon d20 for Conan any time soon (if ever), so the d20 Conan fans can just relax and enjoy what they have. I still hope that Mongoose eventually prints a Conan book that will appeal to MRQ/BRP fans, which isn't all that outrageous of an idea since MRQ is a house system. I think a MRQ would sell well even amongst BRP fans that don't like MRQ - again, due to the ease of conversion (and I still want to see Vincent D's MRQ Hyborian Age magic system).
Mmm hmm. So how does the combat from Phoenix on the Sword work in RQ terms? Conan takes multiple wounds, including two extremely debilitating ones that bypass his armour. Because that combat could easily work in Conan d20 terms (including a dagger To the Hilt and a couple of MD hits). it's a lot harder to see it working in brp terms.
As soon as you start 'feinting' - deducting part of your attack to force the defender to do the same, you're clunkifying the system - and a good number of folk who like RQ do so because the system is allegedly cleaner than d20 (note I think it is in some ways but is certainly not in others, including how 'to hit' works).
Also note, i'm not interested in bashing RQ, or saying d20 is intrinsically better. But d20 seems better suited to a Conan setting than RQ (for the reasons I've said) and I'd like to be convinced otherwise. I've no objection to people saying why they like RQ, that's fine. I like RQ too. For Glorantha. Convince me (anyone) that it can be made better than d20 for the Hyborian Age...
Clovenhoof
Mongoose
@AKAmra: of course, it's always a matter of taste in the first place, so if you like systems without classes and levels, then I can see you would prefer RQ over D20.
How any given setting/genre can best be reflected in a game system is a different matter, as Demetrio pointed out. I do say that system does matter, and it's important to choose a system that supports the desired game style. But anyway.
One more word on your list -- I'm commenting only on one point because the rest simply is a matter of preference.
Here I disagree, strongly. IMEx, percentiles are counter-intuitive in a very peculiar way, and in fact a notoriously misunderstood system. Look at BRP/MRQ: Firstly, at the beginning of the game, even your key professional skills will be somewhere around 50-60%, and most other skills at a real flimsy value like 13%. Secondly, a percentile system generally invokes the notion that all kinds of tests can be beaten with the same chance. So, a Hunter is as likely to follow a track as to lose one? And can follow a thrush's track as easily as an oliphaunt's? Both is shenanigans.
Some percentile systems explain in the rules that a value of (for instance) 15% is sufficient to automatically succeed at normal tasks with no check required. You only have to roll when you try something real difficult and unusual.
That's well and good, but how is this intuitive? It isn't. Not one bit. At all.
And in fact, after having played several % systems with different GMs, I have to say that basically _all_ of these GMs "forgot" about the 15%-rule (or its equivalent) and had us roll on every little crap. So just to name one example, in Runequest my Hunter was utterly unable to pull himself up a 7'-high roof because I failed my 35% Climb check. That's bullshit, complete and utter bullshit. Any ten-year-old could do it.
How any given setting/genre can best be reflected in a game system is a different matter, as Demetrio pointed out. I do say that system does matter, and it's important to choose a system that supports the desired game style. But anyway.
One more word on your list -- I'm commenting only on one point because the rest simply is a matter of preference.
Here I disagree, strongly. IMEx, percentiles are counter-intuitive in a very peculiar way, and in fact a notoriously misunderstood system. Look at BRP/MRQ: Firstly, at the beginning of the game, even your key professional skills will be somewhere around 50-60%, and most other skills at a real flimsy value like 13%. Secondly, a percentile system generally invokes the notion that all kinds of tests can be beaten with the same chance. So, a Hunter is as likely to follow a track as to lose one? And can follow a thrush's track as easily as an oliphaunt's? Both is shenanigans.
Some percentile systems explain in the rules that a value of (for instance) 15% is sufficient to automatically succeed at normal tasks with no check required. You only have to roll when you try something real difficult and unusual.
That's well and good, but how is this intuitive? It isn't. Not one bit. At all.
And in fact, after having played several % systems with different GMs, I have to say that basically _all_ of these GMs "forgot" about the 15%-rule (or its equivalent) and had us roll on every little crap. So just to name one example, in Runequest my Hunter was utterly unable to pull himself up a 7'-high roof because I failed my 35% Climb check. That's bullshit, complete and utter bullshit. Any ten-year-old could do it.
Well, without actually rereading Phoenix on the Sword for the combat in question:
1) Use the Con+Siz HP formula for PC's
2) Use BRP Drama Points to "reduce" the damage
3) An Impaling dagger in BRP could do as "little" damage as 2 points + DB, even using Hit Locations the limb could be usable and now has a dagger sticking through it.
One problem using stories too literally to model game expectations is that the author doesn't have to follow rules. Conan can take numerous deadly blows, or be knocked out by being hit over the head with a flagon of wine - as the author wishes to progress the story. Some of these scenes will fit one game system better, others would be better modeled in a different system.
Others may have the opinion that Hit Locations are extremely important to Hyborian flavored combat, how else are you going to get those limbs flying and decapitations?
I don't think "I took a -50% on my attack, so you have to parry at -50%" is "Clunkifying", but tastes differ. I do think some kind of option needs to be used if 90%+ combatants are involved with BRP to avoid the "I hit!, I parry!" doldrums. As I said, there are a lot of ways of dealing with this issue, some more complicated than others.
[/quote]
I'm won't try to convince you of anything of the sort, nor can you convince me that a system that I do not like is best for a game setting I want to play. RQ is better than d20 for Hyborian gaming for anyone that likes RQ rules better than d20 rules - I think that's self evident.
Clovenhoof said:
System is important in that it appeals to the involved players as well. You can't be suggesting that for all time to come, if you don't do d20 you can never enjoy a published Conan game because it's the only system that can do it properly?
And again, if MRQ/BRP can do Elric, how do you figure it can't do Conan?
I'm sorry that you had a poor RQ GM, but that doesn't reflect on the system. A GM that's not going to use the rules or common sense can make any gaming experience bad.
But I prefer RQ/BRP rules to d20 in most cases. But I think they'd stink in a Hyborian Age setting.
As I said above, the d20 rules need some tweaking in several areas but going to a % based system will simply introduce different problems and to my mind give a weaker starting point for gameplay. Mainly because RQ is not a system that allows heroic combats of one against many but also because the % system, as Colvenhoof says, copes quite poorly with ease/difficulty of tasks. Let's say I've Climb 50%. When do I roll and what bonus penalties apply in the following cases?
Climbing a 40' ladder tilted at 95 degrees?
Climbing a 100' 'vertical' rock face.
Climbing a wet and slippery 65 degree slab where the holds are small and poor?
Hauling myself onto a low roof?
Using daggers as impromptu handholds inserted in the masonry to scale a castle wall?
In d20 one merely sets a difficulty level and rolls against it. In RQ I must determine a penalty or bonus to each roll, which adds a step to the process.
I'd like to expand on my point about fragility of pcs in RQ.
Let's say we use the rule that player characters get Siz+Con as hit points rather than (Siz+Con)/2.
Let's take a 'high level' character. He'll be Conan-like with Con 21 and Siz 20 (that's a bit bigger than Conan I think but regardless...) for 41 hit points.
Now an equivalent d20 character will have say Con 20. Let's say he's level 10 and is a Barbarian/Soldier. So he'll have 10+9d10+50 Hit Points. Or an average of 105. About 2.5 times as many.
So let's look at the damage this character will take under either system. We shall assume an 'average foe' is a decent warrior with a +d4 damage bonus in RQ or +2 to damage in d20. We'll say his weapon will do d8+1 in RQ terms but d10 in d20 (the broadsword).
In RQ double damage hits occur 20% of the time (Special and Critical hits) whereas in Conan they'll occur 10% of the time (actually a bit less of course but we'll roll with 10%).
So in RQ the average damage on a normal hit will be d8+1+d4 or 8 points. On a special hit it will be 2d8+2+d4 or 13 points. Lets take a cumulative 10 hits, 8 normal and 2 specials. Average damage is 8x8+2x13 = 90 points. Enough to kill our hero twice over.
In d20 average damage on a normal hit will be d10+2 or 8 points (let's go wild and round up). On a critical hit it will be 2d10+4 or 15 points. 10 hits will give us 1 crit and 9 normal hits for 15+9x8 points. Or 87 points. Our man's not down.
Now let's agree that the foes might well have feats that boost their damage a bit. But our RQ hero is still twice as fragile. He's about as tough as a level 4 or 5 d20 Soldier with high Con.
A weaker RQ character might have Con 14 and Siz 12. So 26 hit points. An equivalent d8 hit dice based d20 character would again be about level 4 or 5.
So in RQ all characters, regardless of experience will tend to be about as resilient as a low-mid level d20 character of similar type.
Clovenhoof
Mongoose
Of course not. I hear that Savage Worlds is also an excellent match for Conan, to name one example. I'd try SW myself any time if my fellow players were interested in it. There may be several other systems well suited to the task.
Sometimes. But you are not necessarily hit far more often.
But it was suggested above that RQ could use rules such as sacrificing attack to reduce the opponent's parry to reduce that.
Let's say I have a d20 character with a Dodge of +11and a finesse attack of +15/+7/+2 (as it happens I have such a character). He also has Combat Expertise so he can potentially improve his defence to +16. Let's say he faces four foes so they each get +3 to hit.
His +16 defence becomes effectively +13. To stand a 50% chance of hitting the character, his opponents must have an attack bonus of +12. If they only have an attack of +5 then they hit only on an 18 or higher, 20% of the time.
Now I'm not certain how you'd equate that to RQ terms. But it's highly unlikely that a pc will avoid being hit by 4 'lower level' opponents twice as often as his d20 counterpart, or anything like as often, and hence he is relatively fragile.
Let's say our RQ hero is attacked by 4 soldiers who have 75% attack and parry - not an unreasonable situation I think. To avoid being hit, he must divide his parry. Let's say he's confident of going firs and killing one of his foes so need only divide his parry three ways. let's say he is happy to have a 75% chance of parrying each blow. He needs a weapon parry of over 200% to do this!
Let's say he has a more reasonable weapon skill of 150%.
So he attacks Foe1 at 150% versus 75%. He reduces his foe's parry to 25%. He'll bypass the parry 75% of the time and let's say he does enough damage to take the foe out of the fight because he's str 21, con 21, siz 21, dex 20 and thus gets +2d6 to damage.
He is now attacked by 3 foes. Two will hit on average and he'll parry one of those (as he's divided his parry of 150% three ways). So he gets hit every round on average as a new foe steps up to take the place of the wounded or dead man.
We've established (above) that in 5 rounds he'll be dead. And this is pretty much the upper extreme of hit points that we can reasonably expect to find.
Now put my d20 duellist (level 12) against an unending stream of level 3 'mooks' (I'd say level 3 was roughly equivalent to 75%, I'm open to argument). They have weapon focus and +2 from strength. So attack is +6 - 25% chance of a hit. The likelihood is that my charatcer will kill 2 or more each round (he has Greater Combat Reflexes, in addition to his multi-attacks), but let's say he only takes one out the fight each round. He suffers less than one hit each round. He has 110 hit points and suffers an average of 9/hit so it'll be a dozen rounds before he's down.
Maybe +15 does not compare to 150%. Maybe 75% does not equate to level 3. But we have to go quiet a long way down the levels before the RQ character is as handy as my d20 character at dealing with multiple foes.
In essence a RQ character's combat prowess is determined by his attack and parry chance, damage bonus, hit points and how quickly he strikes (initiative).
A d20 character has exactly the same (attack bonus, defence bonus, damage bonus, hit points and initiative) but he also benefits from combat feats - something that Chaosium RQ lacked entirely but that MRQ has apparently added. From what I understand they are in much shorter supply than in d20.
So d20 benefits from character gaining more hit points and having a wider array of combat enhancing feats as well as multiple foes having far less advantage than in RQ.
Demetrio said:
And that's why RQ is better suited to run an hyborian age adventure.
After all, you're not supposed to be as powerful as Conan in Conan RPG, just like playing Starwars where you won't be as powerfull as the Emperor or Luke, nor any Middle-Earth game is able to let you go as high as Gandalf the White or Sauron.
So being unable to reach Conan capabilities is a must have !
W.
Similar threads
