Conan RPG Acheronian Edition

[Krushnak]

Sup4 with a strength mod of -2 and the opponent having dr4 it means they will never hurt them as even if they roll a 6 on the d6 it will come out as 4 after the strength gets applied and then do nothing against the armour.

 

[Trodax]

I've got characters with STR 7. That's a -2 Damage modifier.

They use poinards, doing 1d6 -2 damage when they hit. Minimum damage is 1 point.

They are currently fighting foes wearing leather armor (DR 4).

Which means...when they hit but are unsuccessful with a finesse attack...

d6 result of 1-4 = 0 points of damage because of armor damage reduction.

d6 result of 5-6 = 1 point of damage under the minimum damage rule.

Using the rules you're using, shouldn't it be:

d6 roll of 1 = 1 point of damage, reduced to 0 by armour
d6 roll of 2 = 1 point of damage, reduced to 0 by armour
d6 roll of 3 = 1 point of damage, reduced to 0 by armour
d6 roll of 4 = 2 points of damage, reduced to 0 by armour
d6 roll of 5 = 3 points of damage, reduced to 0 by armour
d6 roll of 6 = 4 points of damage, reduced to 0 by armour

BTW, I use the optional rule that a hit always deals at least 1 point of lethal damage, even if armour would reduce it to 0 (I would also never mess with the non-lethal stuff). It's a very easy rule to use, and makes armour just slightly less super-powerful.

EDIT: Ah, I see Krushnak beat me to it...

 

[Supplement Four]

Sup4 with a strength mod of -2 and the opponent having dr4 it means they will never hurt them as even if they roll a 6 on the d6 it will come out as 4 after the strength gets applied and then do nothing against the armour.

Naw. See, the -2 STR modifier results in a minimum of 1 point of damage under the rules. But, the DR 4 from the leather results in no damage if the total of the damage throw minus DR is zero or less.

So...

d6 damage, using a poinard, and -2 from STR, -4 from leather.

The key is to look at armor DR first, then STR mod, since STR mod only will leave you with 1 point of damage.

d6 damage throw...

Roll 1 - 4 = 0

Roll 2 - 4 = 0

Roll 3 - 4 = 0

Roll 4 - 4 = 0

=============

So, right here, we know that 1-4 will result in no damage at all just because of the armor (and we haven't considered the STR penalty yet).

For damage throws above 4, though, we can consider the STR penalty and DR rating together, knowing that results of 0 or less result in a minimum of 1 point of damage under the minimum damage rule.

Roll 5 - 4 - 2 = 0; Resulting in 1 point of damage under the min dam rule.

Roll 6 - 4 - 2 = 0; Resulting in 1 point of damage under the min dam rule.



Let's look at results 5 and 6 a bit closer:

Roll 5 - 4 armor = 1. 1 - 2 STR = 0, but the min dam rule kicks in.

Roll 6 - 4 armor = 2. 2 - 2 STR = 0, but the min dam rule kicks in.



So...

If a finesse attack is not successful, but the attack is successful, my characters with STR 7 and poinards only do 1 point of damage on a damage throw of 5 or 6. Otherwise, the damage is zero (on damage throws of 1-4).

In order for a sneak attack to be successful, the characters need to score at least 1 point of damage before any sneak attack damage is added. If a sneak finesse attack is not successful, but the sneak attack is successful, sneak attack damage will only be added if the initial damage throw results in a 5 or 6.





One thing that is a bit confusing is that there are two minimum damage rules. One min dam rule is optional. One isn't.

The one that is not optional applies to all modifiers on the damage roll except armor. The min damage granted is 1 point of lethal damage.

The one that is optional applies to armor only, but the min damage granted is 1 point of non-lethal damage. (The rule does say that this can be lethal damage at GM's option.)



I use the non-optional min dam rule. I don't use the optional min-damage rule.

 

[Krushnak]

You take the strength penalty away from the damage roll before applying armour. Otherwise there wouldnt need to be two minimum damage rules.

roll 1 -2 = 1
roll 2 -2 = 1
roll 3 -2 = 1
roll 4 -2 = 2
roll 5 -2 = 3
roll 6 -2 = 4

A damage reduction of 4 will negate all of that damage unless you use the optional minimum damage rule.

 

[warzen]

Can you remind me how does that relate to the thread ?
Conan d20 is not designed to play weakling.

W.

 

[Sutek]

Yeah, dudes. A -2 STR mod means zip to the thread. Any character with a -2 STR mod would, reasonably, have a high DEX and be using Finesse Attacks, be one of the non-martial classes (Noble, Sorcerer, etc.)

8)

 

[Supplement Four]

Yeah, dudes. A -2 STR mod means zip to the thread. Any character with a -2 STR mod would, reasonably, have a high DEX and be using Finesse Attacks, be one of the non-martial classes (Noble, Sorcerer, etc.)

Actually, they're both theives. And, they do use the finesse fighting style. But, still, STR is used for damage.

 

[Supplement Four]

You take the strength penalty away from the damage roll before applying armour. Otherwise there wouldnt need to be two minimum damage rules..

No where in the rules does it specify the order modifiers should be applied to damage. I take armor first because it makes more sense, and it's easier (If there's anything left after damage reduction, you can use the minimum damage rule).

 

[Sutek]

Well, then you are doing it incorrectly. Mods to damage are to the damage roll, so the -2 would apply before comparing to DR.

Can you guys move this discussion to another thread? I dislike 90% of this Acheronian Rules stuff, but he is allowed to post it and get relevant feedback without the thread getting hijacked.

Thanks.

 

[Supplement Four]

Well, then you are doing it incorrectly. Mods to damage are to the damage roll, so the -2 would apply before comparing to DR.

I'm afraid you're incorrect again Sutek, unless you can show me a line in the rule book that says what you posit.

Use common sense, Sutek. Should someone with STR 7 be able to punch through thick leather (jerkin) with a 1.5 foot poinard? Sure. He can't shove it that far (unless he does a critical), but he can pierce it to the tune of 1 point of damage.

Doing it your way means it's impossible to ever pierce it.

DR is really just another damage modifier, anyway. You add it in with the others.

 

[Sutek]

New thread.

 

[Majestic7]

Your complaint, as I read it, is that it's too easy for a PC to get downed by a blow (Massive Damage, or whatever) at higher levels. When that happens, the player playing that character has nothing to do because his character is either incapacitated or dead.

My first instict, if I felt that way about the rules, would be to change the Massive Damage rule. Instead of 20 points, change it back to 50 points as it is in the regular 3.5 rules.

One little change, and you're done.

No. My problem is with attacks and defences not being in order, but the progression being screwed. High level characters are practically guaranteed to hit another character of the same level with every attack. High level Soldiers and Thieves are guaranteed to fail in every Will save and so forth... the mathematics of the system are simply not good in higher level play. I've said these things a dozen times in my previous posts...

I like Massive Damage very much. I like combat being lethal and genuinely dangerous. The problem is that when two 10 level fighter types are slugging it out, the first one that hits (and they hit with 6 or less without power attack!) is going to cause MD. I'd rather have the combat involve say, five misses and then one hit that causes MD than every attack hitting and causing Massive Damage. (Or removing Massive Damage completely, which would turn fights in to boring D&D style combat, where an experienced fighter can take several hits from a greatsword without flinching.)

Or, you can make a tweak from the defensive point of view. Above I wrote my house tweak for the Second Wind option for Fate Point use. Consider using that in your game--or even award more hit points (Blow a Fate Point and automatically be at full hit points).

That does not fix anything. I want combat to be lethal. The problem is in how attacks and defences vary from each other and how high level combat is tossing a coin to see who dies.

My point is: You can make one, simple rule change (either the Massive Damage, or the Fate Point) and achieve your goal. You don't need to make the multiple rule changes you've suggested with the Archeronian edition (unless you just want to). A simple rule change (or rule ignore, if you ignore Massive Damage) can get you fixed.

You must have misunderstood what my aims are or just haven't read my previous posts. You can't fix the problems with attack and defence progression without - well - fixing the attack and defence progression. Anything less is only bandaid. You can circumvent some parts of the problem with obscure house rules, but then you end up cluttering the system with unnecessary moving parts. Simple is beautiful. I've said it a dozen times - rule of laziness does not only apply to demons, it applies to me as well when it comes to running a game. I had not fixed the system this way if there had been any other way that had taken less time.

I know some of your argument is based on enemy weapons doing damage and wearing down PCs, killing them without doing Massive Damage. So, a Fate Point option may be the better rule change for you. Just figure a rule (like my Second Wind) that a PC can use (not unlike a potion of healing) that a PC can use when he gets low on hit points.

That will fix you right up.

You could award Fate Points for being heroic--and every time the PC rolls a natural 20 on a combat throw, he gets one as well--that should keep the PCs in Fate Points.

Minimal changes--and problem solved.

I'm afraid you haven't read my posts properly. *sigh* I was just complaining about how the Second Edition makes Fate Points too trivial, how they should be special and only granted rarely - so giving _more_ Fate Points does not help a bit. It especially does not help a bit concerning high level characters always hitting each other. It only means that the player characters will miraculously survive combat more often. That only strips away part of grittiness. It does not help against PC's being incapacitated too easily, it just means they won't get outright killed. It does not fix the fact that having a duel between two high level characters is tossing a coin to see who wins, not an exciting match where tactics and luck matter a lot.

 

[Majestic7]

But I don't think that's his problem, Sup4. He's saying that the math breaks apart in a way he doesn't like such that characters above 10th either have a very easy time hitting, or a very herd time hitting. The example was two Barbarians going at it, never hitting each other.

My fist though is that I'd have to see the characters and see if they are both tweaked, having all the right feats and everything to be absolutely decked out for combat prowess. My guess is that's why nobody is scoring hits.

.......in my example about two level 10 Barbarians, they hit each other on a roll of 6 on d20. I wouldn't call that "never hitting each other". It is the exact opposite, especially as they are likely to cause MD with every hit. If they put four points in Power Attack, they have roughly 50% chance to hit and every hit is guaranteed to cause at least 20 points of damage. (96% or something like that to be exact.)

I've been at RPGing for decades and loads of people try to build a better mousetrap, but rarely do they get it right. D20 in the 3.5 incarnation of D&D was great, but Mongoose, in my opinion, topped it, making the game flow spotless. Part of what they did was plateau everyone after 10th level so that progression became more about Class Features, Feats, and the interaction between the two (I'm meaning Multi-classing when I mention Class Feature gain also).

Only Hit Points reach a plateau after 10th level. Everything else - Base Attack, Defences, stuff like Power Points - keep increasing.

But, that's why I used the euphemism "throwing the baby out with the bath water" because I read the rule 'fixes' and see something that attempts to address moderate rolls resulting in too many high hit rolls, or that somehow DV is inflated and people are missing all the time. I can't imaging that being the fault of a system that I've played now for years, but more probably a miss-use of character build ideology where the end result is what we used to refer to in the olden days as a "twinky"; a character geared out to be min/maxed (now called "optimization") so that every possible bonus is eked out of the system for the sole purpose of making a combat monstrosity.

You can easily see the problems I've addressed with any kind of character who just happens to reach higher levels and encounters opposition of equal power level, instead of mook hordes. Inflated DV is not a problem - there are very few ways to manage that in Conan anyway. Actually, in the vanilla rules, the only way to have a DV high enough for someone to actually miss you is by pounding all feats in increasing Parry and carrying a big shield. Having a strong character with a two-handed weapon and Power Attack is hardly being a munchkin. Besides, it is just not PA - Sneak Attack can be pretty ridicilous, as well as Terror saves and various spells. I'd still like to hear a detailed answer from you about how the Acheronian Edition spoils the game - and on the other hand, why the mathematics of the higher levels are not screwed. It returns again to whether tossing a coin to see who wins a combat is more fun than actually having a challenging combat encounter.

That is never a fault of the system.

If there are dozens of obvious, easy ways to break the system, then it surely is fault of the system. Not to even mention if the system breaks all by itself only requiring the characters to reach a certain level. That is very different from actively looking for holes and then abusing them.

Now the only thing I do like is the addition of Hero Points, because that lets players have a little more fun control over minor out-of-game things like die rolls and stuff without having to adjust or involve Fate Point rules. The rest of this is totally unnecessary.

Show me the numbers, please. You can't declare these fixes to be unneccessary without proving them to be so through game mechanics or showing how the old rules are good and balanced as it is.

 

[Supplement Four]

You must have misunderstood what my aims are or just haven't read my previous posts. You can't fix the problems with attack and defence progression without - well - fixing the attack and defence progression.

I suggested above using Active Defense. That should fix your problem in one simple, easy-cheesy rule. No revamp of the rules needed.

 

[Majestic7]

I suggested above using Active Defense. That should fix your problem in one simple, easy-cheesy rule. No revamp of the rules needed.

If you mean rolling d20 instead of having 10 as a base for defences, that really doesn't fix anything. It may cause a single hit to miss or hit depending on the results of the die, but statistically the amount of hits and misses remains almost the same since attack bonuses are still obscenely much higher than defence bonuses. It as well slows down the game without really having any noticable change on the average outcomes.

 

[Supplement Four]

Only Hit Points reach a plateau after 10th level. Everything else - Base Attack, Defences, stuff like Power Points - keep increasing.

@Majestic7. Question for you.

Did you use Heroic Character Generation?

One of the reasons I insisted on a chargen method in my campaign that would turn out average people instead of heroes is that I forsaw problems down the road at higher levels.





In other words, if every character didn't start the game with something like an STR 18 with a +4 modifier, then attack bonuses won't grow as high when attribute improvements are applied.

For example, my two thieves in my game have STR 7, with a -2 modifier. Adding attribute improvements at level 4, 6, 8, and 10 only makes thier the stat at STR 11 by level 10. The -2 modifier goes from -2 to 0.

The other character in the group, a soldier character, has STR 14 at 1st level. If he pours all his stat increases into STR, he'll only be STR 18 at level 10, increasing his +2 modifier to +4.

DEX is similar on the thieves for Finesse fighting. One has a DEX 14, and the other has a DEX 15.

I believe that some of the problems you cite are clear reasons why Heroic Chargen and arrange-to-taste should not be used in a Conan game.

I created Conan 321 chargen as a limiting factor in character generation (more player choice than no arrangement at all, but much less than total arrange-to-taste).

 

[Warma]

Suggesting not using heroic character generation futher underlines your inability to grasp the mathematics of the issue. It does not fix anything as it only affects beginning stats, not the progression itself. Do you realize that with less ability scores, the defending dude will also have a lower defense and hitting is just as easy.

The core mathematics in the relation between defenses and attacks are faulty. In d20 the absolute level of defense is irrelevant. Only the difference between defense and attack matter. If you progress them differently, you will not get reasonable results.

Let's take a Borderer with equal stats or STR and DEX. At level 1, he has +X to hit and +X to defense. They cancel out, so we may ignore that. We pit him against a copy of himself.

Just see the following and think about it, please.

At level 1, +0 to hit, +0 to defense. Must roll 10 to hit -> 55% chance of hitting.
At level 10, +10 to hit, +5 to defense. Must roll 5 to hit -> 80% chance of hitting
At level 15, +15 to hit, +7 to defense. Must roll 2 to hit -> 95% chance of hitting.

Pretty bleak, eh?

If you want a more concretic example that is pretty lenient for the system, let's take a Barbarian with a good defense progression. He's using a greatsword and has weapon focus, weapon specialization and power attack (hardly munchkin). We may assume STR 14 and DEX 12 in the beginning. All char point increases are spent on STR.
I am selecting a power attack value of 4 (reasonable). With this value, I report the change to throw the dice in such a manner that you get 20+ damage and then report the total chance of ending up causing a MD when attempting an attack with that power attack value.

At level 1, +3 to hit, +2 to defense. Must roll 9 to hit. -> 60% chance of hitting. A power attack with 4 causes MD 74% of the time -> MD chance ~30%.
At level 10, +15 to hit, +10 to defense. Must roll 5 to hit. -> 80% chance of hitting. A power attack with 4 causes MD 97% of the time -> MD chance ~58%
At level 15, +21 to hit, +14 to defense. Must roll 3 to hit -> 90% chance of hitting. A power attack with 4 causes MD 99% of the time -> MD chance 70%.

Considering that these are only the first attacks of the round, the situation looks grim as the barbarian still has a roughly 50% chance to slaughter his clone on the second attack as well.

Let me make myself clear:
I took only basic feats.
I used very basic and reasonable ability scores.
I did not fight against mooks. These are copies of the character itself, with very reasonable defense capabilities. If applied to thieves, borderers or scholars, the situation is even worse.

Please respond to this. Either tell me that this is what you want or show a graping error in my calculations (I'm probably off by 5% somewhere, but that doesn't really matter).

(edit) chanse -> chance

 

[Krushnak]

There are some very easy ways to bump your defence up. Using a shield is the first and easiest choice for soldiers, nomads and borderers, only really a decent option for high level barbarians if their strength massively outweighs their dexterity. the second is defensive fighting and full defense, sure it can stop you from attacking that round but it increases your chances of survival to last till a round when you can go first and smack the other dude around. then theres combat expertise, sacrifice attack for more defense.

 

[Trodax]

The core mathematics in the relation between defenses and attacks are faulty. In d20 the absolute level of defense is irrelevant. Only the difference between defense and attack matter. If you progress them differently, you will not get reasonable results.

While I mostly agree with what you say, I don't think that having attack outstrip defense automatically causes unreasonable results. Remember that we also have escalating hit points, and it all depends on what the impact of a succesfull hit is. That might have sounded obscure, but what I mean is that I think the deadliness of the Conan system is part of the problem here (and by deadliness I mean the high weapon damages (especially those grotesque two-handers, of course) and the massive damage rule).

In D&D 3.0/3.5 attack bonus also progresses faster than AC, similarly to what we have in Conan. But there attacks normally don't deal that much damage and we don't have massive damage to worry about. This means that in fights between two high-level warriors, their first highest-bonus attack will usually be hitting. But these badboys have a ton of hit points to soak it up, so it's not a problem. What will determine the fight in the long run is if their iterative attacks with lower attack bonuses will hit or not. This is of course a very different type of game, because it is much more a war of attrition where the first attacks have absolutely no chance of killing your opponent (as opposed to Conan where any attack pretty much has the potential to end the fight). Still, though, it is a workable system.

My point here is that if you think high-level fights are too deadly and too much of a coin-toss (and I agree), you could potentially fix it in two ways:

1) Make defense more equal to attack (what Majestic7 is suggesting). You will have more attacks missing, but when you do get hit, things can get nasty.

2) Lower damage or modify/remove massive damage (part of what Sup4 has suggested). Combat will be more a slow war of attrition (which I realise many people find boring).

I will add that I have always thought the damage-output of two-handed weapons is simply too much in Conan, and, since high-level characters also have more hit points, I don't think the high-level coin-toss would be that bad if everyone was armed with a simple broadsword (all the examples I've seen with these horrendous chances of causing MD with the first hit are with a greatsword/bardiche-wielder).

 

[Csmallo]

I will add that I have always thought the damage-output of two-handed weapons is simply too much in Conan, and, since high-level characters also have more hit points, I don't think the high-level coin-toss would be that bad if everyone was armed with a simple broadsword (all the examples I've seen with these horrendous chances of causing MD with the first hit are with a greatsword/bardiche-wielder).

If these are the weapons causing the problems, then make these weapons unattractive to the players. Large two handed weapons are ok on an open battlefield, but in thick brush/woods or most buildings they are going to be hard to use effectively. Once the PC has his 2h sword get caught in the overhanging limbs and vines, leaving him open for attack by his opponent (I would rule this to be an AoO.), maybe he will pick up a broadsword. The new watch commander could decide that citizens and especially roaming vagabonds (most PCs) should be barred from owning "assault weapons". Sure the tough barbarian might kill the first few guards that try to disarm him, but when 20 of them with cross bows surround him (out of sword reach) he can give up his bardiche or look like a pin cushion.