Conan RPG Acheronian Edition

[seanbickford]

It seems to me that most people do not dispute the claim that combat gets a little wonky at high level play. The only arguments I've seen are based on whether the system is "good enough" as is OR based on a person not reading very carefully. It also seems to me like some posters have an inordinate amount of reverence for the existing rules or Mongoose in general. Speaking for myself, discussion about possible changes isn't an attack on the Conan RPG general as a whole--most of it is pretty awesome--but rather an improvement of the game I love.

Warma has done a pretty good job of simplifying an explanation of the mechanics in question. Supplement Four... I... nevermind. I hope these discussions will continue in a productive manner. I find them extremely interesting. I think that the goals need to be clearly defined and then the mechanics can be argued over.

 

[Sutek]

I will agree, with the caveat that I realize that it get's exceedingly easy to hit and kill past lvl10, but that I don't care. I think it feels like Conan.

FORT, too, increases and mitigates MD. There are all sorts of factors that can easily take the edge off easy hit, lots of damage "problems." I suggested delaying BAB bonuses - giving a Soldier the +1 attack at 3rd or maybe even 5th instead of 1st. Start the progression, just start it later. We've all discussed PA to death and 2handed PA is too much, so don't double the damage bonus, only the number of dice rolled.

I just think, as I've said all along, that there's no need for a system re-write when, as has also been suggested, meta game GM tweaks and some minor rules adjustments can reduce the problems expressed here.

It is, after all, a game, and meant to be fun. If you're thinking about this math crap this much, I'm sure that's what's really the problem with your game.

 

[Warma]

If you're thinking about this math crap this much, I'm sure that's what's really the problem with your game.

Hearing this kind of argumentation infuriates me a little. Understanding the mathematics and probabilities of a matter does not automatically make me a bad person. For me, it's simply not enough to play and pretend that the system is allright when actual in-game combat is badly skewed.

Let me illustrate. I play in Mj7's campaign and have made my character in more of a concept sense. I play a son of a merchant exiled for dabbling with the arcane. Game mechanically that is a soldier 1 / scholar X with touch spells and a large emphasis on defense. It's just that the game mechanics just make this kind of builds useless. Even min-maxed, a scholar just cannot raise his defense enough for it to matter, and while I have some weak DC 18 incapacitative attacks that require me to both hit (with a weak BAB) and have the target fail his save, a fighter of the same level in close combat has an equivalent of three DC30 instakills per turn that don't really care whether I make the saves because I'll be dead by sheer damage alone.

As a player, I simply want the combat to be reasonable, which it simply is not. Just lowering the BABs by some 4 points is not sufficient, as then I may have some 10% chance of being alive at the end of the combat turn instead of a 2% chance. Essentially, the fighter should have around the same difficulty of landing an instakill as a mighty scholar commanding the powers of death (or perhaps a bit more difficult, since the fighter's combat ability is a lot more universal). In actual probabilities, this should be 25% or less, which is true for scholars, but not fighters. In AE, using the necessary amount of power attack lowers the probability around there for fighters too.

You're not even saying what the problem in your mind actually is, just that it's 'bad'. Instead of some concrete changes, you suggest esoteric, difficult-to-apply house rules that change the beginning of the progression, say that fighting defensively solves the problem or claim that others are playing the game incorrectly by actually using characters that do damage.

These are not simple, elegant solutions. People in this thread have time and time again explained that the changes were made with simplicity in mind. 4th edition has put much thought in game balance of the system and having played and tested it, I agree with the philosophy. Giving static bonuses in that system gives classes a constant, easily measurable edge over others with the same probabilities in all levels. The whole game desing concept is cleaner and less prone to abuse.

I understand very well that everybody does not like or need game balance, especially as roleplaying games are not just about rolling dice. However, cooperative tactical play through combat has always been fun for me in RPGs - I simply want it to work.

(edit) chanse -> chance

 

[Clovenhoof]

I didn't read all of this thread, just the beginning and the last page. Majestic has often contributed very valuable submissions to this board, but this time I'm not convinced.

First off, if I understand these rules correctly, everyone can fight equally well over all levels, because everyone gets the same attack and defense values and so forth. I don't quite like that. I feel that a Barbarian should actually fight better than, say, a Scholar.

I agree that the Attack-Defense ratio is flawed in Conan, no debate there. The RAW essentially say, at least for high level games: "Lose initiative once -> make new character". While it's a good thing that striking first is very beneficial, the fact that a professional warrior will never last a second against his own clone (or vice versa) proves that something is wrong.

The current RAW don't even give you the tools to optimize your defense to a really good level. Even a shield-using soldier with combat expertise has only about 50% chance to parry the first attack. Considering the _other_ 50% very likely mean Massive Damage, that's not a viable survival strategy.

A few months ago, someone here (can't remember who) suggested to give PCs a universal defense bonus equal to (Level/5) or so. Alternatively bump up the progressions one step (+10 becomes +15 etc.). That's what I'm currently experimenting with, and so far it doesn't look too bad, but not perfect either.
But it's a bit tricky to decide _how_ a duel of clones _should_ look like. Should they have a very low chance of hitting each other, or a moderate one, or may it be a bit on the high end? While I can't give an absolute answer to that, I think everything is better than insta-win for the highest initiative score.

 

[Edhel]

I didn't read all of this thread, just the beginning and the last page.

Then I suggest you read it. Don't disregard the class bonuses, feats, higher hit points, class abilities etc. If your scholar wants to have Str 18 and spend all his feats to improve close combat, it's fine, but he'll still be worse than soldier or barbarian and much worse in sorcery and academics.

This was discussed in the thread earlier.

 

[Sutek]

Clovenhoof: You've summed up my opinion better than I did, I think. I don't mind the glitchiness above 10th lvl because (a) people rarely fight their clones and (b) because to me RPGing isn't a mathematical model or some equation that needs balancing. I think it should remain unbalanced to some degree, because, as Hoof just said, Barbarians should fight better than Nobles, no matter what level. I thing D&D4 is a pile of lump because it evens the playing field so much that nothing is interesting anymore, and that's what I feel that equalizing the bonus line so that everyone has the same progression is going to do. Now, if that's the kind of game you like or it makes your Conan game work better for your group, then great, but I see it potentially unravelling more things down the line (feats, skills, spells, etc.), or at least raising more questions than you're trying to answer.

Warma: I didn't mean to sound offensive, so I apologize if you took my "anti-math" comments that way. I stink at math and play RPGs to not think about math, almost specifically (lol). Yes, things won't work mathematically, but things in reality don't all the time either, and they especially don't when operating in a fantasy world. I'm okay with that, and don't seek empirical answers or balance where I don't feel it's needed. Ys, I see by your models that attack bonuses get high and allow for easy hits, and defense values stay rather low and allow for more hits to connect. But all it sounds like to me is that you delay the levels in which classes gain additional BAB (so attack doesn't get so high) or you increase defense bonus opportunities, as Hoof mentioned.

That's where I get with players and develop new feats. Maybe there's a feat that allows INT bonus to add to DV. Or WIS bonus. Maybe even CHA bonus, if you word it right. There are already feats and skills that undermine the direct Attack/Hit/Damage procedure, and that's where I'd fight the battle the Acheronian Edition is trying to fight.

The most obvious example of what I'm talking about is Sneak attacking after an Improved Bluff. It creates a situation where a physically weak character with low strength can kill a huge dude with one Finessed attack. Why not compare 10th lvl clones of each class and then create a new edition, or show me the math then. Right now it seems a lop-sided argument that hitting and killing clones of one's self is too easy. It's just as easy if casting Pull Forth the Heart, but nobody is doing the math on that.

 

[Warma]

Right now it seems a lop-sided argument that hitting and killing clones of one's self is too easy. It's just as easy if casting Pull Forth the Heart, but nobody is doing the math on that.

Well, this is what I kind of was getting into with the easiness argument and comparison of various classes' ability to kill each other. Casting Pull Forth the Heart is much much harder than hitting the clone.

Pull Forth the Heart is a very advanced spell, accessible at level 14 the earliest, and has an impressive line of requirements, three of which are feats and one is a sorcery style. Of these feats, only ritual sacrifice is in some sense a must-have, which means that the prize of this ability is indeed quite high.

If we assume a powerful sorcerer, with a combined magic attack bonus of +12 at level 14 (CHA 18 and feats or CHA 20), against a fighter class with high FORT advancement and CON 16 (reasonable) with no fortitude saving throw bonuses whatsoever, the chances of actually landing this spell is around 55%, assuming the scholar can act first (we may again think about the chances of that happening). If he has maximum power points and not an insane amount of WIS, he may use this spell ONCE, as it consumes 7PP.

The target, on the other hand, has a much easier time than hitting some supposed clone. Using a build that can actually use the heart drawing spell and give or take a few points in str scores, a fighter class at 14th level can throw around 5 to power attack and still only miss the scholar on a roll of 1. The MD DC is high enough that the scholar needs almost a natural 20 to make it, meaning that the fighter kills the scholar 90% of the time on the first hit from anywhere within charge range.

The same applies for thiefs. The combined one-hit chance either by actually having to roll for initiative or by using improved feint is somewhere around 75% if the sense motive check of the scholar is maximized (if not, the chance is near 100%).

I very well thought about this when making the above claims. In RAW Conan, almost all character classes have extremely powerful, infinite-use, easily accessible instakill abilities, of which the spells are by far the weakest and most expensive in both resources and character customization options.

 

[Sutek]

Okay. Gotcha. But it does go back to my assertion that simply adding mooks is a fine solution too. No fighter type should be going toe-to-toe solo with a sorcerer type of any level without a couple of dozen goons to wade through.

Comparing clone to clone is one thing, but since the mechanics of the system weren't intended for that to be the norm, it falls apart under that condition.

I still think it works just fine and is playable and fun if using the RAW, regardless of mathematical models. Barbarians hit often when they're high level and usually with deadly results? Don't go against them one-on-one. Throw a dozen or more Bardiches against them and see how things go. Heck....shoot him full of arrows. That'll teach that math to stay down! (lol)

 

[Majestic7]

Sup4, Clovenhoof and others had their answers from Edhel and Warma, so I won't bother saying basically the same thing again.

Comparing clone to clone is one thing, but since the mechanics of the system weren't intended for that to be the norm, it falls apart under that condition.

That is not the point. The point is that the system now actively limits options available to GM for a fun result. You can't have a duel between two high level characters without it being boring using the vanilla rules. Besides, I don't see anywhere in the books a recommendation to only throw low level mooks against the players. Big monsters and elite opponents belong to Howardian scene as much as cutting a bloody corridor through a sea of weaker opponents. So from this point of view, the system is broken.

Yeah, you don't need to like it, but many problems discussed on this board in a variety of thread are fixed by using Acheronian Edition. At glance it may appear complex, but it is far less complex than making up a dozen house rules to patch things up. At that point it is smarter to move to using another system entirely.

 

[warzen]

At that point it is smarter to move to using another system entirely.

It's what I've done. I wanted to go back to d20 for Trial of Blood but 3 pages of stats for the first encounter with weaklings destroyed that last try.

W.

 

[Sutek]

Grit has no place for duels. Equal aptitude in reality means first lucky guy wins. True adventure is based on challenge, and if the challenge is even, there's no drama, no adventure and, again, the lucky guy wins.

This is reflected by the system. Gaining INIT on one's clone means he's probably dead. I have no problem with that. If the combat is dead even, it shoul dbe a coin toss.

Your statement that it doesn't say that there's a reccomendation to throw low level mooks against players is true, but I don't see the validity in bringing that up. In fact, CR is done away with on purpose to allow GMs leeway in offering up whatever challenges that want, regardless if it's even or not[//i]. I don'tsee that as evidence that the system is broken, either, because low level PCs versus high level monsters or other badsdies works fine. No, it's not just about loads of mooks pouring all over the PCs, but it's definately not stated that anyone should be fighting thier own Mirror Universe duplicate to an epic length battle either. (lol)

I've not suggested a "dozen house rules" for the problems you've stated. Bump down BAB so the progressions start at later levels, or, along with players, create feats that augment DV, and I only suggestes a few.

 

[Majestic7]

Grit has no place for duels. Equal aptitude in reality means first lucky guy wins. True adventure is based on challenge, and if the challenge is even, there's no drama, no adventure and, again, the lucky guy wins.

This is reflected by the system. Gaining INIT on one's clone means he's probably dead. I have no problem with that. If the combat is dead even, it shoul dbe a coin toss.

A hundred movies and a thousand stories disagree with you. Many, many, many forms of fiction involve a tough duel between the protagonist and the main villain in the end of the story arc. "Equal" does not mean being a clone, but being about the same power level.

Your statement that it doesn't say that there's a reccomendation to throw low level mooks against players is true, but I don't see the validity in bringing that up.

Huh? Of course it is valid to bring it up since you've been repeating that the system is not meant for anything but throwing mooks at the player characters! Meh, I really don't understand how I could explain the point of the Acheronian Edition to you in a better, clearer way. Of course, if you don't want to see and contemplate the numbers, then there is no way to explain anything since that is the source of all problems. Like I keep repeating, the only viable alternative is to change to another system entirely. (Or keep playing a broken game, but that is like shooting yourself in a leg on purpose.)

I've not suggested a "dozen house rules" for the problems you've stated. Bump down BAB so the progressions start at later levels, or, along with players, create feats that augment DV, and I only suggestes a few.

That was a general comment regarding many other posters. That solution simply fails at multiple levels, as have been shown by various posts in this thread. I won't repeat them again, especially if you are not interested in the underlying mathematics that are the cause of the problem.

 

[Trodax]

This thread got a little caught up in whether or not this Acheronian edition was a good thing, or if its goals could easily be achieved through some other rules-tweak. Here is an attempt to go back to the original post and look at some of the specific changes, because I generally like what I see and am interested in perhaps doing something similar.

I'm thinking about multiclassing, and specifically I have a concern that it might actually be too easy and beneficial to multiclass under these rules. I'm thinking for example that warrior-type characters can easily pick up the first level of Thief or Scholar to get a die of sneak attack or a sorcery style, and they can do this without loosing any steam to their attack or defense progressions. Under the regular rules, multiclassing like this generally has a cost as many of the attack/defense/save progressions start out with no bonus at level one (so the rules actually encourage you to pick up maybe two or three levels of a new class). I don't know, it might not be a big deal, what do you think?

One other thing I thought about regarding multiclassing was what you will do with weapon and armour proficiencies. Under the regular rules, if you multiclass, you automatically get all the proficiencies of your new class. Will it be the same in the Acheronian edition? Otherwise you could use it as a way to balance things off at first level, by saying that you don't get that stuff for free. Barbarians multiclassing into Soldier would still need to spend a feat to get heavy armour proficiency, for example.

 

[Clovenhoof]

I think that's how the Star Wars Saga Edition handles it, i.e. you only get the full benefit package for your first character class. Start out as Soldier and then take Thief, you get all the W/A proficiencies but few skills. Start out as Thief and then take Soldier, you get all the skills but not the proficiencies.
That's not bad compared to the current system, where taking Thief first and then Soldier gives you everything, while taking Soldier first and Thief second robs you of a ton of skills.

 

[Majestic7]

I'm thinking about multiclassing, and specifically I have a concern that it might actually be too easy and beneficial to multiclass under these rules. I'm thinking for example that warrior-type characters can easily pick up the first level of Thief or Scholar to get a die of sneak attack or a sorcery style, and they can do this without loosing any steam to their attack or defense progressions. Under the regular rules, multiclassing like this generally has a cost as many of the attack/defense/save progressions start out with no bonus at level one (so the rules actually encourage you to pick up maybe two or three levels of a new class). I don't know, it might not be a big deal, what do you think?

Acheronian Edition actually makes class abilities and feats more important, even if everyone has the same progression with attacks and defence. Things like Soldier bonus feats and Formation Combat matter now much more than before, so you should look at them more closely. Anyway, I think the Conan system has always aimed towards reinforcing multiclassing, so I don't see this as a problem. Rather I see it as a strength - you can create even more versatile characters with even less trouble. You should note that multiclassing is RAW the key to having very good one save as well - since you can take, say, three classes with +2 to Will at the first level.

One other thing I thought about regarding multiclassing was what you will do with weapon and armour proficiencies. Under the regular rules, if you multiclass, you automatically get all the proficiencies of your new class. Will it be the same in the Acheronian edition? Otherwise you could use it as a way to balance things off at first level, by saying that you don't get that stuff for free. Barbarians multiclassing into Soldier would still need to spend a feat to get heavy armour proficiency, for example.

I've kept it that way, so having one level of Soldier for proficiencies is ok. I don't think it is that much of an issue - since a single-level Soldier will be more powerful combatant any day due to his extra feats etc. However, if you find this to be an issue, the obvious fix would be to do it Star Wars Saga style. Proficiencies are only gained from the first class the character takes and the rest must be taken with feats. (Of course, this may make everyone take one level of Soldier as their first level...)

Edit - Clovenhoof said basically the same thing while I was writing this post...

 

[Trodax]

Anyway, I think the Conan system has always aimed towards reinforcing multiclassing, so I don't see this as a problem. Rather I see it as a strength - you can create even more versatile characters with even less trouble.

Cool. Sounds reasonable.

(Of course, this may make everyone take one level of Soldier as their first level...)

Well you would have to balance it against starting skill points, starting hit points, and the level one bonuses to attack/defense/saves. Basically so that all classes were attractive to start with for some reason.

 

[Trodax]

Some more specifics...

Barbarian: +1 Dodge, +1 Fort, +1 Ref
Borderer: +1 Fort, +1 Ref, +1 Will
Noble: +1 Fort, +1 Will
Nomad: +1 Fort, +1 Ref
Pirate: +1 Fort, +1 Ref - Seamanship bonus to both attacks and dodge
Scholar: +1 Magic Attack, +2 Will
Soldier: +1 Attack, +1 Parry, +2 Fort
Temptress: +1 Ref, +1 Will
Thief: +2 Ref

I take it you have attempted to balance these bonuses against the varying number of skill points (and hit points) different classes start with at level one? Some thoughts:

The Nomad seems a little underpowered when compared to the Borderer and Barbarian; they all start with the same number of skill/hit points but the horse-rider looses out on a bonus that the other ones get. Same goes for the Pirate, but I'm not sure what you mean with the Seamanship bonus there; is it a bonus you only get if you start as a Pirate?

The Noble might along the same vein be a little weak. Also, why the +1 Fort for the Noble? The Noble needs to get something, of course, but I would probably have preferred +1 Ref over Fort.

 

[Majestic7]

Well you would have to balance it against starting skill points, starting hit points, and the level one bonuses to attack/defense/saves. Basically so that all classes were attractive to start with for some reason.

Well, Hit Dice remain the same, same with Skill Points and starting SP's. Not to mention the amount of cash a character starts with.

 

[Majestic7]

Some more specifics...

The Nomad seems a little underpowered when compared to the Borderer and Barbarian; they all start with the same number of skill/hit points but the horse-rider looses out on a bonus that the other ones get. Same goes for the Pirate, but I'm not sure what you mean with the Seamanship bonus there; is it a bonus you only get if you start as a Pirate?

The Noble might along the same vein be a little weak. Also, why the +1 Fort for the Noble? The Noble needs to get something, of course, but I would probably have preferred +1 Ref over Fort.

The Nomad is a bit of an oddity in the classes. I've never used the class in any way or form - it is a cool idea, but so specific that it is hard to find any proper usage for it. I suppose if you want to reinforce Nomad a bit, giving +1 to Dodge or Attack while mounted, perhaps even both, would be the kind of thing in line with his Class Abilities.

No, all Pirates have the Seamanship Bonus - it is a class ability. It is just a generic note that the bonus comes both to Attack and Dodge, not only Dodge and Skill Checks like RAW. Pirates get some very sweet Class Abilities along the line, so I didn't see a need to buff them.

What comes to the Noble.. why do you think Nobles should have +1 to Ref? I see Ref as something mobile, quick fighters get. Nobles, especially Hyborian ones, are supposed to fight encased in steel, on horseback so Fort seemed far more logical. It as well abstracts their better overall health since they have grown among riches instead of starving every other day like most of the other people... In general, Nobles have money and special privileges due to their position alone. Thus I don't think they need any more mechanical bonuses. Half of their potential is wasted if they are only dungeon crawling, of course - but likewise a Nomad is lost without his mount and a Pirate loses some of his potential when not aboard a ship.

 

[Trodax]

He, he, some more questions I thought of...

Every characters gets an extra attack every fifth level, starting from 5. (So a level 5 character has attacks with +5 and +0.)

Wait a minute, how does this work with the 1/2-level attack increase? Would it still be based on highest attack -5, -10 and so on? If so, a 15th level character would have attacks at +7/+2/-3, and it feels kind of odd with those negative attacks.

To be honest, I'm not sure I like iterative attacks under this system at all (mainly because scholar-types will have the same number of attacks as warrior-types, I guess). Couldn't you replace them with a feat (or a chain of feats) similar to Rapid Shot (make two attacks, but both are at a -2 penalty)? This would make the difference between the warrior-types and the scholar-types larger, because the warrior-types would be more likely to take such a feat.

Characters receive HPs worth of full class HD + Constitution score from the first level. Yes, this means that a Soldier with Con 18 will get 28 HP at the first level.

Is this a special rule for the PC's, or do all characters in the game get a hit point boost? I'm thinking mostly of low-level mooks here (level 1 or 2 perhaps), for which the difference would be significant.