Critique my rules modifications

[Trodax]

So I’m working on homebrew system based on the Conan rules and have a couple of rules modifications that I’m thinking about which I thought I’d run by you people. It will be a Sword & Sorcery game, slightly based on the Dawnforge setting if you’re familiar with that. If it works out I might also use the system for Conan.
Anyway, the setting isn’t important here; just imagine that these are houserule suggestions for a Conan game.

Penetrating and finessing through armour is discarded
The option to make melee attacks (Str based) and finesse attacks (Dex based) is kept, but they deal with armour in the same way. Basically, armour has DR that is always applied unmodified to all attacks (this is how its handled in Iron Heroes, for example). To compensate, the DR of armour will be lowered. Actually, it will lowered quite a bit so as to make armour less of a big deal than it is now (full-plate might have a DR of like 5 or 6).

Classes have only a single defense progression
Parry and Dodge are kept as two different ways to defend against attacks, but classes have only a single Base Defense Bonus instead of separate Parry and Dodge progressions. They will still be different since Str and shields apply to Parry while Dex applies to Dodge and various feats affects them differentially.
Basically, all classes will have Parry/Dodge progressions like the Nomad/Borderer/Thief or like the Scholar.

All classes only go up to level 10
You can only have up to 10 levels in a single class, if you go higher you’ll have to multiclass (as it works in d20 Modern). This would actually not be that big of a deal in my game since almost all characters in the world are level 10 or lower; its just that those few high-level heroes will have to multiclass as Conan did.
The only problem I see would be the Scholar class which should be able to go higher to get those dreaded powerful sorcerers. This could be fixed by having a 10-level prestige class of sorts (Master of Sorcery?) that you could take once you reach Scholar level 10.

Massive damage is slightly less dangerous
Massive damage works as it does now, but the save DC is lowered to (5 + half of damage taken) to make it a bit easier to pass the save.

What do you think of these changes? Would it destroy much of the game to not have the AP/finesse stuff? Would it be boring to not be able to play a straight-up, 20th level Barbarian? Tear my ideas to shreds.

 

[Foxworthy]

Penetrating and finessing through armour is discarded
The option to make melee attacks (Str based) and finesse attacks (Dex based) is kept, but they deal with armour in the same way. Basically, armour has DR that is always applied unmodified to all attacks (this is how its handled in Iron Heroes, for example). To compensate, the DR of armour will be lowered. Actually, it will lowered quite a bit so as to make armour less of a big deal than it is now (full-plate might have a DR of like 5 or 6).

Well first you'd need to modify the Barbarian ability that grants DR. It would become extremely powerful with these changes. It does nix the problem with Finesse fighters and sneak attack ignoring every bit of armor but on the other hand it makes Str that much better. Without the ability to finesse past armor than two handed weapons will rule the day. No advantage to using an arming sword over a greatsword (not counting shields.)

Classes have only a single defense progression
Parry and Dodge are kept as two different ways to defend against attacks, but classes have only a single Base Defense Bonus instead of separate Parry and Dodge progressions. They will still be different since Str and shields apply to Parry while Dex applies to Dodge and various feats affects them differentially.
Basically, all classes will have Parry/Dodge progressions like the Nomad/Borderer/Thief or like the Scholar.

As a player I like the different progression. It actually works as a balancing factor for multiclassing. It makes player scarafice something if they switch to a radically different class (defense minded). A parry happy soldier switching to a dodge happy barbarian isn't always a great jump but a parry happy fighter jumping to parry happy noble is a plus.

All classes only go up to level 10
You can only have up to 10 levels in a single class, if you go higher you’ll have to multiclass (as it works in d20 Modern). This would actually not be that big of a deal in my game since almost all characters in the world are level 10 or lower; its just that those few high-level heroes will have to multiclass as Conan did.
The only problem I see would be the Scholar class which should be able to go higher to get those dreaded powerful sorcerers. This could be fixed by having a 10-level prestige class of sorts (Master of Sorcery?) that you could take once you reach Scholar level 10.

Well in the campaigns I've played I've seen quite a few players go for a 15 level in a single class. It's a neat idea but it will be based on whether your group likes the idea.

Massive damage is slightly less dangerous
Massive damage works as it does now, but the save DC is lowered to (5 + half of damage taken) to make it a bit easier to pass the save.

I'd give out less fate points. Would make a less deadly game on it's own but combined with the reduced DR it might have some nice eefects.

 

[Trodax]

Thanks for your comments foxworthy!

Penetrating and finessing through armour is discarded

Well first you'd need to modify the Barbarian ability that grants DR. It would become extremely powerful with these changes.

Good point. I'll be doing some modifications to the classes, especially if the changes to Parry/Dodge and the 10 level maximum are used, so the DR will probably just be dropped.

It does nix the problem with Finesse fighters and sneak attack ignoring every bit of armor but on the other hand it makes Str that much better. Without the ability to finesse past armor than two handed weapons will rule the day. No advantage to using an arming sword over a greatsword (not counting shields.)

Hmmm, yeah maybe you're right. However, IME, using a weapon with high damage and AP is better against heavy armour (DR 6+ or so) than trying to finesse through. Succeeding with the finesse attack just becomes too difficult when DR is high, while a big two-hander isn't all that bothered by the halved DR thats deducted from its huge damage. Against lighter armour, finesse works better, I'd say that finesse/melee are pretty balanced there.

So I'm not sure my rules change will make Str better than it already is; its already pretty damn good (at least now even two-handers will get full DR). I'll have to think on it some more, though, perhaps you are right.

One thing I didn't mention is that I'll probably slightly lower the damage of the big two-handers a notch (greatsword down to 2d8 or so). I'll also remove the Thief's sneak attack style ability, restricting sneak attack to d6's. Basically slightly shifting combat back to how it works in D&D in terms of deadliness (just slightly, though :wink: ).

Classes have only a single defense progression

As a player I like the different progression. It actually works as a balancing factor for multiclassing. It makes player scarafice something if they switch to a radically different class (defense minded). A parry happy soldier switching to a dodge happy barbarian isn't always a great jump but a parry happy fighter jumping to parry happy noble is a plus.

Yeah, it would definitely make it less costly to multiclass, thats true. The reason I thought about this change is that it would make it more open to create for example a parry-based Barbarian (Nordheimir) or Pirate (roughneck Argossean), or a dodge-based Soldier (sneaky Zingaran). Probably the already powerful Barbarian class would especially benefit from this change (no need for Dex anymore!) so that class might have to be modified.

All classes only go up to level 10

Well in the campaigns I've played I've seen quite a few players go for a 15 level in a single class. It's a neat idea but it will be based on whether your group likes the idea.

Do you think any particular character concepts would be especially affected? For example, perhaps a powerful pictish warlord who would in the normal game be Barbarian level 15 would be difficult to stat up appropriately (he would be forced to have some levels of Noble, or Borderer, or whatever)?

Do you think there's a risk that many characters would become too similar at high levels?

 

[Trodax]

Oh, here are some more things I've been considering. Feedback will be greatly appreciated!

Slightly reduced skill list
Some skills are removed and replaced by a broader skill.
Balance, Jump and Tumble are folded into Acrobatics.
Hide and Move Silently are folded into Stealth.
Listen, Spot and Search (possibly, might keep Search separate) are folded into Perception.

With these changes, how much would you modify the number of skill points the different classes get?

Hit points are a little more fixed
The hit points you get from your class are changed so that d6 becomes d4+1, d8 becomes d4+2 and d10 becomes d4+3. Con is added as usual, of course. After level 10 you don't get the d4, so hit point are as usual just +1, +2 or +3 points/level depending on class.
At level 1 you don't get maximum hit points, but instead all classes get a fixed bonus of 4 hp (so a Barbarian would get 4+d4+3 hp at level 1).

Class-independent number of skill points at level 1
At level 1, you don't get the usual number of skill points you normally get from your class ((X+Int)x4). What you get instead is the normal 'per level amount' (a Barbarian would get 4+Int, for example), and in addition all characters get something like (Intx3)+12 skill points that can freely be placed on any skill (haven't decided if the background skills you get from your race should also be included in this pool of skill points).


These two last changes together take away the benefit of starting with a particular class at level 1, something that's always bugged me, especially in Conan where multiclassing is so common. For example, a multiclassed character that was Soldier 1/Thief 1 would now turn out exactly the same whether he started with Soldier or Thief at level 1.

 

[argo]

S
Penetrating and finessing through armour is discarded
The option to make melee attacks (Str based) and finesse attacks (Dex based) is kept, but they deal with armour in the same way. Basically, armour has DR that is always applied unmodified to all attacks (this is how its handled in Iron Heroes, for example). To compensate, the DR of armour will be lowered. Actually, it will lowered quite a bit so as to make armour less of a big deal than it is now (full-plate might have a DR of like 5 or 6).

At a rough glance it looks balanced. That is to say it seemse internally consistent with other parts of your proposed modified game system. The big change I see here is one of flavor. The current penetrate/finesse rules allow a tank to stride accross the battlefield laughing off the weak blows of the peons and then the heroic PC comes up and shreds said tank because the PC is 9th level and the tank was only a 5th level dude in good armour. Your houserule makes armour a little less effective accross the board but also much more reliable accross the board. Like I said, a flavor thing.

Classes have only a single defense progression
Parry and Dodge are kept as two different ways to defend against attacks, but classes have only a single Base Defense Bonus instead of separate Parry and Dodge progressions. They will still be different since Str and shields apply to Parry while Dex applies to Dodge and various feats affects them differentially.
Basically, all classes will have Parry/Dodge progressions like the Nomad/Borderer/Thief or like the Scholar.

Again, such a change would be, by definition, balanced because it would be internally consistent within the system.

This rule combined with the change to armor above does start to cut down the soldier however since the parry-happy heavy-armour tank soldier is arguably the strongest soldier concept. Somethng to think about.

All classes only go up to level 10
You can only have up to 10 levels in a single class, if you go higher you’ll have to multiclass (as it works in d20 Modern). This would actually not be that big of a deal in my game since almost all characters in the world are level 10 or lower; its just that those few high-level heroes will have to multiclass as Conan did.
The only problem I see would be the Scholar class which should be able to go higher to get those dreaded powerful sorcerers. This could be fixed by having a 10-level prestige class of sorts (Master of Sorcery?) that you could take once you reach Scholar level 10.

:shrug: I like d20 moderns approach to classes. You could do a PrC for spellcasters to finish out their 10 levels or, if you want a low-magic game, you could just leave it as is. Since all calsses have a magic attack progression it would be workable. High level scholars would just have to develop their mundane skills. I predict multiclasses with Noble (manipulator) or Thief (poisioner/schemer).


I am starting to sense an undercurrent here. You are going for more of a unified approach where classes are less "archtypes" and more "kits" that the players are meant to mix and match, buffet style. I cannot say that I am entirely opposed to this idea (as I said, I like what d20 Modern did to the classes).

Massive damage is slightly less dangerous
Massive damage works as it does now, but the save DC is lowered to (5 + half of damage taken) to make it a bit easier to pass the save.

:shrug: this rule does what you want it to do. Your other option would be to leave the save DC alone and change the massive damage threshold to 10+Con Score. Thus a character with a Con 14 has a MDT of 24. Now the save is just as difficult but characters face fewer saves. Different approaches to the same problem

Slightly reduced skill list
Some skills are removed and replaced by a broader skill.
Balance, Jump and Tumble are folded into Acrobatics.
Hide and Move Silently are folded into Stealth.
Listen, Spot and Search (possibly, might keep Search separate) are folded into Perception.

With these changes, how much would you modify the number of skill points the different classes get?

My first instinct? Do not reduce the number of skill points per level at all. Result, more well-rounded characters who simply do what they do. No really, maybe you will finally have a PC drop ranks in Knowledge (local) :lol:

Hit points are a little more fixed
The hit points you get from your class are changed so that d6 becomes d4+1, d8 becomes d4+2 and d10 becomes d4+3. Con is added as usual, of course. After level 10 you don't get the d4, so hit point are as usual just +1, +2 or +3 points/level depending on class.
At level 1 you don't get maximum hit points, but instead all classes get a fixed bonus of 4 hp (so a Barbarian would get 4+d4+3 hp at level 1).

The math is ugly and inelegant but since you only roll it once per level I can live with that. Again, this rule does exactly what you want it to do. No comment on if what you want is a good thing or bad as you are attempting to taylor it to your own game.

Class-independent number of skill points at level 1
At level 1, you don't get the usual number of skill points you normally get from your class ((X+Int)x4). What you get instead is the normal 'per level amount' (a Barbarian would get 4+Int, for example), and in addition all characters get something like (Intx3)+12 skill points that can freely be placed on any skill (haven't decided if the background skills you get from your race should also be included in this pool of skill points).


These two last changes together take away the benefit of starting with a particular class at level 1, something that's always bugged me, especially in Conan where multiclassing is so common. For example, a multiclassed character that was Soldier 1/Thief 1 would now turn out exactly the same whether he started with Soldier or Thief at level 1.

This is the first idea you have posted that I outright dislike. As it stands it does matter what class you choose first and I like that. Adds some flavor to character background.


Hope that helps.

 

[Trodax]

Penetrating and finessing through armour is discarded

At a rough glance it looks balanced. That is to say it seems internally consistent with other parts of your proposed modified game system. The big change I see here is one of flavor. The current penetrate/finesse rules allow a tank to stride accross the battlefield laughing off the weak blows of the peons and then the heroic PC comes up and shreds said tank because the PC is 9th level and the tank was only a 5th level dude in good armour. Your houserule makes armour a little less effective accross the board but also much more reliable accross the board. Like I said, a flavor thing.

Very good point; armour does indeed become much more predictable.
The thing is, I think the penetration/finesse rules work fine but they do add some extra calculations to combat (slowing things down at least a little bit), and I've always asked myself if its really worth it.

Some ideas for making armour more unpredictable:
* The DR of armour isn't a set amount but instead a random number, like d4, d6 or d8 (this is how it works in Iron Heroes). Don't really like it as it adds an extra roll to every successful hit.

* You could have a 'finesse-like' mechanic that works for both finesse and regular melee attacks. For example, if you beat your opponents defense by 5 or more (or 10, or whatever), the hit ignores armour. This would at least allow high-level characters to slice through heavily armoured, low-level opponents. It does add back some of the calculations that I'm trying to remove, though, so I don't know...

Thoughts?

Classes have only a single defense progression

This rule combined with the change to armor above does start to cut down the soldier however since the parry-happy heavy-armour tank soldier is arguably the strongest soldier concept.

Yes, it does. I'm thinking right now about stuff that could give the Soldier a slight boost as compensation. As I said in that other thread, I'm definitely keeping the Weapon Specialization stuff as Soldier-only. Perhaps that could be elaborated on (more Soldier-only feats, I mean) or you could just throw in an extra bonus feat or two. The formation combat stuff is pretty class-appropriate, but it doesn't get used all that often; perhaps it could be modified. I'm also considering giving the Soldier an extra skill point or two (the extra skill points at level 1 mentioned below is also an upgrade, if I choose to use it).

More thoughts?

I am starting to sense an undercurrent here. You are going for more of a unified approach where classes are less "archtypes" and more "kits" that the players are meant to mix and match, buffet style.

You sense correctly.

Massive damage is slightly less dangerous

:shrug: this rule does what you want it to do. Your other option would be to leave the save DC alone and change the massive damage threshold to 10+Con Score. Thus a character with a Con 14 has a MDT of 24. Now the save is just as difficult but characters face fewer saves. Different approaches to the same problem

Yeah, that's another variant. The reason I like mine is that it sort of smoothes out the boundary between non-massive and massive damage. As it stands now, there is a huge difference between taking a 19 hp hit and a 20 hp hit since the massive damage save starts at hard (DC 20 ain't easy for most characters) and goes up to impossible. With my version, taking a hit of exactly 20 hp might not be all that dangerous for a high-level character (DC 15). I don't know, I guess I just prefer more of a 'danger granularity' as you go up in damage.

Hit points are a little more fixed

The math is ugly and inelegant but since you only roll it once per level I can live with that.

Hmmm, I think it is rather elegant myself ( ), if you think of it as characters getting hp from two different sources. First, all character get hp based on their character level: d4+4+Con hp at level 1, d4+Con hp/level at levels 2-10 and nothing at all at levels 11-20.
In addition, characters get 1, 2 or 3 hp/level depending on class at all levels (1-20).

Anywho, the average hp ends up exactly the same as normal with this version, except that classes with d10 HD loose 1 hp at level 1 and classes with d6 HD gain 1 hp at level 1. Big difference is that it is less random (which I like) and that there is no longer any benefit of starting at level 1 with a high-HD class (this I will only use if I also use the class-independent skill points mentioned below).

Class-independent number of skill points at level 1

This is the first idea you have posted that I outright dislike. As it stands it does matter what class you choose first and I like that. Adds some flavor to character background.

This is probably the change that alters things the most; the Thief and Scholar will loose quite a lot of skill points while the Soldier gets a real boost.

The thing is that I don't like that there is such a huge benefit of choosing certain classes at level 1 (the skill-heavy Thief and Scholar). The multiclassed Thief/Soldier that starts as a Thief gets 18 (!) more skill points (and looses 2 hp, but that doesn't hurt too much) than the guy that starts as a Soldier. There is just too much incentive for the 'thief turned mercenary'-concept over the concept of 'mercenary turned to thieving ways' for my taste. :wink:
Should add that I'm thinking in terms of a multiclass-heavy game here; in D&D I never thought it was such a big deal.

Actually, I wouldn't mind if there were differences based on your level 1 class, but I would want them to be more balanced. Grim Tales tried to do this by restricting things so that you only got the armour and weapon proficiencies of your class at 1st level (a Thief who wanted to learn to fight in heavy armour would have to spend a feat on it, it wouldn't be enough to multiclass into Soldier). I didn't like how it was handled, though; much to restrictive.

Thanks a bunch for your comments argo; they are very valuable to me.

 

[argo]

Some ideas for making armour more unpredictable:
* The DR of armour isn't a set amount but instead a random number, like d4, d6 or d8 (this is how it works in Iron Heroes). Don't really like it as it adds an extra roll to every successful hit.

If your goal is to speed up combat then this is most defenitely not the way to go.

And pleasee note that I never said that making the benifits of armor more predictable is a bad thing. Just that it changes the flavor. I have a half-complete homebrew system that I meant to use for future sci-fi games where armor provides DR ranging from 1 (leather biker jacket) to 6 (full tactical body armor) and no bypass mechanic. For that sort of game I want pridictable armor. The space marines are supposed to be able to measure the ground gained by the number of casualties taken. For Conan I like the dynamic of the hero being able to take down the otherwise-unstoppable tank but once agian, you have to ask yourself what flavor you want?

* You could have a 'finesse-like' mechanic that works for both finesse and regular melee attacks. For example, if you beat your opponents defense by 5 or more (or 10, or whatever), the hit ignores armour. This would at least allow high-level characters to slice through heavily armoured, low-level opponents. It does add back some of the calculations that I'm trying to remove, though, so I don't know...

Seems simple enough. At least for me calculating if an attack is 5 over DV takes about .5 seconds.

However it seems a little self-defeating to both reduce DR values and then add back in such a simple bypass mechanic. Again, I encourage you to think about what sort of tone you want to set for your game.

Classes have only a single defense progression

This rule combined with the change to armor above does start to cut down the soldier however since the parry-happy heavy-armour tank soldier is arguably the strongest soldier concept.

Yes, it does. I'm thinking right now about stuff that could give the Soldier a slight boost as compensation. As I said in that other thread, I'm definitely keeping the Weapon Specialization stuff as Soldier-only. Perhaps that could be elaborated on (more Soldier-only feats, I mean) or you could just throw in an extra bonus feat or two. The formation combat stuff is pretty class-appropriate, but it doesn't get used all that often; perhaps it could be modified. I'm also considering giving the Soldier an extra skill point or two (the extra skill points at level 1 mentioned below is also an upgrade, if I choose to use it).

Well, "more high level soldier-only feats" is the sort of talking-points standard answer to all complaints that the fighter/soldier is underpowered. However it seems that nobody ever really does it because they always choke at the thought of denying all the other classess access to the really cool feats.

However, I did write up this feat for my campaign:

Army of One (Soldier)
Your battlefield experience is so ingrained that it has become second nature.

Prerequisite: Soldier level 10.

Benefit: You may use any of your Formation Combat abilities even when you do not have the required number of allied soldiers with the same formation present. You must still meet all the other requirements to use the Formation Combat ability (such as wearing the right type of armor or being mounted). You may only use one Formation Combat ability at a time in this manner.

Since each formation combat ability is about roughly equal to one feat (a little on the upper level of the power curve for feats) this basically is a sort of uber multi-purpose feat for soldiers only.

The thing is that I don't like that there is such a huge benefit of choosing certain classes at level 1 (the skill-heavy Thief and Scholar). The multiclassed Thief/Soldier that starts as a Thief gets 18 (!) more skill points (and looses 2 hp, but that doesn't hurt too much) than the guy that starts as a Soldier. There is just too much incentive for the 'thief turned mercenary'-concept over the concept of 'mercenary turned to thieving ways' for my taste. :wink:
Should add that I'm thinking in terms of a multiclass-heavy game here; in D&D I never thought it was such a big deal.

Well, I think that that sort of choice (theif turned mercenary or mercenary who hangs out with thieves) adds flavor to the background. And you are right the that difference from HP is part of the balance here. Also a few feat chains don't work quite right unless you start with BAB +1 at first level (example, if you start as Thief you can't use your level 1 feat for Quick Draw).

But all that is about reinforcing class archtypes and you seem more interested in the opposite so maybe this will work for you.

Actually, I wouldn't mind if there were differences based on your level 1 class, but I would want them to be more balanced. Grim Tales tried to do this by restricting things so that you only got the armour and weapon proficiencies of your class at 1st level (a Thief who wanted to learn to fight in heavy armour would have to spend a feat on it, it wouldn't be enough to multiclass into Soldier). I didn't like how it was handled, though; much to restrictive.

You know, I have given serious thought to trying the same thing but in the end I decided that for my current campaign I would rather keep the house rules to a minnimum. However I may try something similar in a future campaing. Again, it would be about balancing that choice to start as soldier or as thief.

Hope that helps.

 

[Trodax]

For Conan I like the dynamic of the hero being able to take down the otherwise-unstoppable tank but once agian, you have to ask yourself what flavor you want?

For my Sword & Sorcery RPGs, I want the following from armour rules:

• Armour is good, but not essential for survival (running around in a loin-cloth should be A-OK). In Conan RPG, armour is slightly too important for my taste; my players often strip fallen opponents of their armour just to get something between their skin and the enemy blades, which always leaves me with a slight feeling of D&D (equipment makes the man!).

• The type of weapon you wield isn’t super-important. Again, in Conan I think the differences between weapon damages and how they get through armour is slightly too big. A bardiche is just so extremely much better against full-plate armour than a broadsword (of course it should be better, I just think the difference is too big; you know, the riddle of steel and all that :wink: ).
This I will rectify somewhat in my game by evening the weapon damages out a bit (dagger will be upped to 1d6 and greatsword taken down to 2d8).

• High-level characters should be able to deal with low-level, heavily armoured opponents easily enough. This is actually the thing I’m most worried about with my system; that a high-level character with a dagger would have too much trouble against someone in full-plate armour. Might not really be a big deal, though, as high-level folks most often have ways to boost damage (power attack, sneak attack or whatever). And you could always grapple his ass.

Ah, I’ll probably end up just sticking with my original system; armour has a constant DR (1-6 or so) that can never be bypassed. It is the easiest and fastest at least.

However, I did write up this feat for my campaign:

Army of One (Soldier)
Your battlefield experience is so ingrained that it has become second nature.

Prerequisite: Soldier level 10.

Benefit: You may use any of your Formation Combat abilities even when you do not have the required number of allied soldiers with the same formation present. You must still meet all the other requirements to use the Formation Combat ability (such as wearing the right type of armor or being mounted). You may only use one Formation Combat ability at a time in this manner.

I really like that; thanks!
Perhaps a 10-level writeup of the Soldier could look something like this:

1 Bonus feat
2 Formation combat
3 Bonus feat
4 Formation combat
5 Bonus feat
6 Formation combat
7 Bonus feat
8 Formation combat
9 Bonus feat
10 Army of One

I think this would make the Soldier quite powerful, with enough incentive to stay on for the full 10 levels.

 

[Trodax]

BTW, here are some more things I might change if there is anyone with the Endurance and Iron Will to keep reading my ramblings...

Changed progression for good saving throws
Because multiclassing will be heavily encouraged (since there are no parry- or dodge-specialized classes) and eventually even obligatory (since there is a 10 level per class maximum) I will mess around with the Good saving throw progression a bit (to make it slightly less ‘front-loaded’):
1 +1
2 +2
3 +2
4 +3
5 +4
6 +4
7 +5
8 +6
9 +6
10 +7

Uncanny Dodge only works for dodge defense
Because parry and dodge progressions are now the same for all classes, this gives a little incentive for the previously dodge-heavy classes (Barbarian & Pirate) to still invest in dodge (their Mobility ability also only affects dodge).
Note that Uncanny Dodge will still be very useful for a parry-based character as it is much better to be able to use your dodge defense (even if it isn’t the best) than to be caught flat-footed.

Wearing a helmet is just a substitute for a cool hair-style
I will steal the rules from Exalted for how helmets work; they don’t provide any mechanical benefit at all, you just wear one if you think its cool. Therefore, dressing up in full-plate but leaving your head bared so that your black mane can flow dramatically in the wind is perfectly viable.

Two new skills: Sailing and Warfare
Profession (sailor) and Knowledge (war) are replaced by their own separate skills (because driving your enemies before you on the field of battle and sailing a road of blood and slaughter are important enough for their own skills :wink: ). This doesn’t change much, except that Sailing is now a class skill only for the Pirate and Warfare is a class skill for the Soldier and the Noble.

 

[Sutek]

Why not just ply D&D then...

:?

I sorta kid, but really, skill additions aside, the rest of your mechanics tweaks just seem like a reversion to pre-AE ConanD20 or more like D&D3.5.

Why these changes? Maybe I don't see some subtle rationalle for each of the "alterations" you're making and so I'm having a hard time understanding what I'm critiquing here. Know what I mean? What's wrong with Finesse bypassing DR? What's the problem with DR itself? What's with stopping at level 10? What not jsut give out less XP and more FP?

 

[quigs]

My group is getting frustrated with some of the Conan rules. Namely the AP and DR stuff as well as weapons like the bardiche doing way too much damage.

We have plugged in a large number of house rules to rectify this but its getting hard to remember them all, so we may end up just scrapping the d20 Conan rules altogether, and using the setting of Hyboria with the Iron Heroes rules.

I love the setting info and I think the game does do a good job of portraying Robert E Howard's stories. Unfortunatley, the mechanics are a little clunky and not a good fit for my group.

 

[Trodax]

I sorta kid, but really, skill additions aside, the rest of your mechanics tweaks just seem like a reversion to pre-AE ConanD20 or more like D&D3.5.

Yes, some of the changes to combat (less dangerous massive damage and lowered damage for big two-handers and sneak attack) take things towards how it works in D&D. But other changes (maximum of 10 levels per class, equal parry/dodge progressions for all classes) promote a game even heavier on multiclassing than Conan already is, and that is definitely not in the direction of D&D.
Actually, I believe that even with these changes (and there may seem like many of them), the game would still be quite similar to Conan. Most of the changes won't really affect how the game plays, just the make-up of the characters in the game.

(As an aside, I never played pre-AE Conan; which of my changes is a reversion to how it worked in the first printing?)

Why these changes? Maybe I don't see some subtle rationalle for each of the "alterations" you're making and so I'm having a hard time understanding what I'm critiquing here. Know what I mean? What's wrong with Finesse bypassing DR? What's the problem with DR itself? What's with stopping at level 10? What not jsut give out less XP and more FP?

Actually, I usually don't use houserules very much; so far I've been playing Conan almost exactly by the book, and we've had fun with the game. But during play I've noted a number of small things that have made me think: "Why didn't they do it like this instead?", "I think this would be cooler."

For example, I really think the Barbarian class should have the same parry/dodge progression as the Borderer/Nomad/Thief so that it could effectively portray not just whirlwind Picts, but also armour-clad Nordheimer. From there, its easy to ask yourself why the progressions should be separated at all for any class.
Other stuff; I think armour is slightly too important (as mentioned above), the bardiche damage is a bit too much etc. etc.

As for the AP/finesse stuff, I think those rules work OK but they do add a level of complexity to combat. For me, I think the game would be more enjoyable with armour rules that were a bit lighter.

Why I really like the idea of a 10-level maximum per class, I'm not sure. I guess it just reinforces the idea that classes are just building blocks from which you create your character (and multiclassing is so much fun anyways!).
(Giving out less XP would not achieve at all the same thing I'm going for with this rule.)

Basically, I'm building the Conan 2nd edition of my dreams (and Runequest be damned! ).

What I was looking for in this thread was exactly the kind of comments I've gotten from argo and foxworthy; stuff like: "If you change rule X, then you should be aware that mechanic Y might easily become over-/underpowered".
For example:

This rule combined with the change to armor above does start to cut down the soldier however since the parry-happy heavy-armour tank soldier is arguably the strongest soldier concept. Somethng to think about.

Cause even though I may think my rules look great on paper, there's always stuff you haven't thought about. :wink:

 

[Ichabod]

Few things I really want changed when we start a new campaign:

A. Weapon damage. Specifically, reining in the grossness of numerous two-handed weapons.

I believe that two-handed weapons were given such high damage numbers because it was thought that there would be a lot given up in terms of fewer attacks or lack of shield use. But, that isn't how the game plays in our experience at all. Forcing massive damage saves is always the goal since killing tough stuff in one shot is ... like ... strong. Even if you fail to generate massive damage (most likely because you run across something immune to MDSs), you still do more ("massive") damage than anyone who isn't a thief (and you do it more consistently than a thief). One big attack is also not penalized when you can't do full attacks. Cleave turns the one big attack into two big attacks. There's two common damage multipliers to two-handed attacks - Power Attack being the other. It's pretty easy to hit things in Conan, so killing things fast is exceedingly important.

Sneak attack damage is pretty outrageous too, but that's a matter of balancing one class where fixing weapon damage affects all of the "fighters". And, it's just grating to be punished for wanting to use weapons that are more flavorful.

B. I'm fine with the barbarian class as long as everyone else who isn't a thief or (maybe) scholar gets upgraded.

It seems clear that the game favors barbarians for thematic purposes. I don't see the benefit to these sorts of intentional imbalances when people are playing a game. Borderer and nomad may be fine as NPC classes but are horribly outclassed by barbarian. I too am bothered by how someone is far better off starting out as a thief than whatever class they really want to be. While it's a separate item to fix first level skill ranks, one relatively simple fix I've considered is to have borderers, nobles, nomads, and pirates get 6+ skill ranks per level and soldiers either 4+ or 6+.

With a lot more time and interest by the rest of the group, I could see us just rewriting a whole bunch of the special ability progressions, but I rate the chances of that as fairly nonexistent, so any other ideas for simpler fixes would be interesting.

C. Balancing attributes.

Not sure how to accomplish this, but again, there's no reason to punish people for concepts that, as the rules stand, are subpar.

D. Changing the favored class rules to where the only free feat you don't get is the fifth level one.

Stereotypes are fine for NPCs, giving consistency to a world. PCs should be unique. As the rules stand, a lot of unusual concepts are punished by not getting the freebie feats that mundane concepts get. Under this system, it would be easy enough not to miss out on anything by devoting 25% of one's levels to a favored class, while if someone really wanted a 20th level Stygian thief, would only miss one feat.

E.-Z. With all of the other major changes, I'm not sure there's enough energy to make a host of minor changes, but there's still a lot of things that just irritate me when I think about them, from how bad finesse fighting is to those who don't have sneak attack to how poorly balanced a host of feats are.

Anyway, just a "me, too" rant consolidated from a variety of rants I've put before our group.

 

[Sutek]

Just a brainstorming thing off the top of my head:

A) Weapon damage and two-handed weapons: Subject a penalty to DV for using two-handed weapons. If you have a pole arm, unless you're a friggin ninja or something, you stand a chance of opening yourself up significantly at some point during a combat. Same goes for using a one-handed weapon with two hands. Not sure what it'd be, but in a real life scenario, vikings used long axes (a 12"-14" axe head on a 5'-6' shaft) in combat and they required two hands. Opponents quickly larned to allow the viking goon to take a first swing and over-extend himself and then take advantage of the fact that the huge axe head was now buried two-thirds into the ground. What I'd say is that it a -5DV to use a two handed weapon, with an additional -5DV for reach weapons. Further more, reach weapons force a character to rely on Parry instead of Dodge.

B) Since scholars can be wicked-evil sorcerers, I don't see any upgrade for them being necessary. The other classes besidees Thieves and Barbarians are fine, but require specific racial combinations to make them really shine. Hyboria is a racist world; get used to that. (lol)

C) Not sure how they are unballanced. If the Strength-based characters are running the table, and the Charisma character is feeling left out, put them in a "diplomacy situation". It's your job as GM to man-handle players that want to hack thier way out of every situation if you don't like that attitude. And if they still don't try increasing skills that rely on other stats, remember the words of Qui-Gon JInn: "There's always abigger fish."

D) Players acquireing feats isn't an issue either because you, as GM, are final arbiter of what feats gett added. If it doesn't make sense with the campaign that your Barbarian suddenly takes some strange feat, tell him "no" unless he can cite some rationalle. Make suggestions to craft the characters away from goony, min-maxed game breakers.

I'd also say that favored class isn't as big a deal as too many classes in a multi-classing scenario. Simply disallow that single level of thief to get sneak attack. Force some character class parity into things based on the story you're telling and how the adventure unfolds. It's you power and perogative as GM.

 

[Trodax]

Sorry for the late response; I've been computer-less for a few days...

A. Weapon damage. Specifically, reining in the grossness of numerous two-handed weapons.

I believe that two-handed weapons were given such high damage numbers because it was thought that there would be a lot given up in terms of fewer attacks or lack of shield use. But, that isn't how the game plays in our experience at all.

Yes, this has been my experience as well. The two-handers are simply superior at killing big stuff (via massive damage) and stuff in armour, and with Cleave (and Great Cleave) they also have no trouble at all against multiple opponents. The guy with the bardiche has always been the overall most effective combatant in my games.

I believe that the rules for massive damage and armour as DR (one big attack is better than lots of small ones) favour high-damage weapons quite a bit on their own, and on top of that the two-handed weapons have very high base damage. My solution is to lower that base damage.

B. I'm fine with the barbarian class as long as everyone else who isn't a thief or (maybe) scholar gets upgraded.

I actually don't think the barbarian is all that overpowered for the first 10 levels; you get a lot of nice stuff, but it seems decently balanced to me. From level 10 onwards it might be more of a problem when you start getting the real powerful stuff (the higher versions of versatility, damage reduction, greater mobility, unconquerable, wheel of death). I never really play much higher than level 12-14, so its not really been a problem for me, though.

C. Balancing attributes.

Which attributes do you consider over-/underpowered? Strength seems to get most peoples vote for overpowered, is that it?

D. Changing the favored class rules to where the only free feat you don't get is the fifth level one.

I'm a bit undecided on this one; I absolutely see what you are saying about PC's being exceptions to the norms, and your wish to not penalise them for that. On the other hand, I kind of like how the rules work and that there is some sort of benefit for Stygian scholars, for example (the rules also give a nice edge to Hyborians). I also really like that the bonus feats cap out at level 10, so you always have room to multiclass without loosing out (at least if you play beyond level 10).

Your variant rule will work fine I think; if you want to make it even more extreme you could always keep the first level feat instead (or have a bonus feat at level three or whatever, depending on how much you wanted to restrict multiclassing). If I were to use some version of your rule myself, I would probably just remove the tenth level feat, keeping the first and fifth level ones.

 

[Ichabod]

Addressing ability scores since that seems to be the area people have the most difficulty relating to -

Couple clear incentives in the game:

Drop either highest or next highest value into Intelligence when creating a character. Why? Much more so with a typical Conan game vs., say, a typical D&D game, skill ranks matter (also a reason I feel the soldier is shafted). It's not that there isn't benefits to other attributes, it's that the payoff here is so much greater. For instance, if you want to be good at perception skills, you could have a high Wisdom, but you can also just pump your Int-fueled skill ranks into them as well. The Wis bonus is (pretty much) static where the Int bonus affects every level. I find it uninteresting and lacking in flavor for every character to run around with a 16+ Int.

If you want to be good at fighting and aren't a thief (though, not likely to be bad for them either), focus on Strength. It's not just that it helps your to hit, your damage, your parry. It's not just that there's power feats that are Strength dependent. It's not just that various combat tactics/options like grapple favor Strength, but look at the combat maneuvers in the base book. My character, as I recall, couldn't perform any of them. Wow, feel the balance and the incentives for diversity. Pound for pound, Strength blows away the other physical stats, doesn't matter whether you are min/maxing or not; the *way* you compensate for these clear imbalances is to min/max weaker archetypes, oddly, an alternative that I don't find very satisfying either. Dex doesn't translate into damage output, initiative is too random for a higher Dex to directly mean "I kill you first". Con is purely defensive. Best defense - by far in Conan - is a good offense.

I go back to character diversity. Sure, someone can take some thief levels to generate enough damage for a low STR character, but that's as dull and metagamey as having every fighter running around with an 18+ STR. My GM stated that he doesn't want people to metagame for effectiveness, but if there weren't massive discrepancies in effectiveness, there'd be far less incentive for people to being interested in doing so. We can house rule the game to death to make it more fun to play less optimal archetypes, but why do we have to?

While, yes, a GM can always compensate for these things, like having the bardiche wielding 20 Str Barbarian run into pack after pack of archers, it's just much better to strike a more balanced note in the first place so that you don't have to come up with such contrivances. It's not specifically a Conan d20 problem, it's just that it seems so blatant in this game where you have to delve a bit deeper to see how broken other RPGs are.

I don't know, at least with RPGs it's always possible to compensate. I suppose I could come up with feat ideas for my group to make weaker attributes or whatever better - making weak strong = less disruptive than strong weak.

 

[ricardo440]

A lot of these issues would be easier solved by chatting with your players about the type of game you want.

Just get them around and say "I don't want everyone with clones. Lets think about what people want to play and how you want to spread the styles abilities and skills between you."

I didn't want any STR 18 or 20 Barbarians with 2d10 damage and power attack running around as I thought it would leave everyone else behind in a fight and make it a bit boring, so I just said "I don't want anyone playing a STR 18 barbarian with a 2d10 damage weapon power attack .... unless you come up with a cool twist on it"

p.s. I also don't think that characters choosing high INT is a bad thing at all. I really like it. Putting an emphasis in skills is a good thing. Not every character could pull it off, but it is certainly a good thing which far from breaks the game.
Agreed that WIS (apart from the all important WILL save) is weak and gets weaker as you rise in levels and class bonus's overtake it.
Perhaps something added like a feat which uses wisdom in combat would encourage one or two players to choose it. With no spellcasters that use it it is always going to be a second choice ability.

Or perhaps have a feat that links favoured terrain with WIS for more groovy stuff.