How are you handing out EXP?

It seems to me that it's a lot easier to reward players with skill ranks, feats, weird bonuses, or reputation than to futz around with experience point differences.
 
reward players with skill ranks, feats,

That's an interesting point you bring up there, Ichabod. Let's turn the discussion that way.

Do you ever award freebie skills or feats?
An extra free skill rank or two probably wouldn't do any harm, since you have quite a bunch anyway (supposedly), so it's an helpful and welcome, but not overpowered boon.

A feat, however, that's quite something. Feats are, for most classes, few and far between. However, I could imagine granting a free feat for extraordinary accomplishments. For example, if the party went through hell and back, facing lots of terrifying monsters, mind-warping sorcerers and similar terrors, they may have earned Iron Will without spending a feat slot for it.

However, a typical adventurer will gain around 10 feats altogether in her entire career. A single freebie feat is a 10% increase by level 20 (and more in earlier levels). That's truly a great reward.

Of course, a high-level D&D character will have a shitload of items that grant extra feats. But be that as it may, this is Conan. I wouldn't rule out a feat award, but it should be only once in a lifetime and as a reward for truly horrible ordeals.
And preferrably awarded somewhere mid-level, so PCs don't get too powerful too early, but can still enjoy their feat for a good deal of game time.

I also think that some nice gear can be a fine reward for successful players. I know that Conan is not about stuff, but still you can allow a player to find a nice weapon (maybe equivalent to Akbitanan) and keep it.
 
There are tons of low-powered or crappy feats that can be given out as rewards. We (mostly me) create crappy feats as potential rewards. One of them, ironically, has turned out to be a trademarked ability for a character even though it's only been used meaningfully (after being written up) once.

The benefit of this is that you can actually make use of the feats that PCs would never in their right minds ever take because they are so weak in comparison to the good feats.

I would actually prefer to see lame feats and skill ranks given out after every adventure in addition to experience because levelling up really isn't all that interesting and because any choices the players make will tend to be narrow because of the wide discrepancy in the usefulness of various abilities.
 
I am certain some people would call a feat useful that others describe as crappy. I, for example, find those skill-boosting feats pretty useless. Sure it's nice to have them, but there are so many better choices for a feat slot.

What feats do you have in mind?
 
Here's a system I use:

It takes 10 xp to advance from one level to the next.

Each session you play you gain 2 xp.

During the game if you do a particularly good bit of roleplaying, do somethinge exciting & interesting in combat, or have a great idea/solve a puzzle, I throw a gold coin at you. (The plastic halloween doubloons).

The gold coin can be used during that session to cause any 1 die to be re-rolled at any time during the game.

At the end of the session, any unused gold coins become experience points.

This causes the party to level up about every 3 sessions, rewards roleplay, and discourages meta-gaming like "let's kill these guys because they're worth experience!"
 
Clovenhoof said:
I am certain some people would call a feat useful that others describe as crappy. I, for example, find those skill-boosting feats pretty useless. Sure it's nice to have them, but there are so many better choices for a feat slot.

What feats do you have in mind?


I don't think the skill boosters are useless, just too weak to choose unless they are requirements for something good. They could be rewards, but they aren't lame rewards by any stretch.

Archer's Bane - Way too narrow. Like in all games, narrow advantages have to be powerful to be considered over broad advantages.

Armoured Stealth - You already wasted a feat on Stealthy, how much specialization do you want so that your chain shirt can be worn? Anyone with Light-Footed (which is awesome) isn't going to care about this anyway.

Blind-Fight - At least when it's useful, it could be useful. Still way too narrow.

Carouser - Everybody in our group wants this as a freebie feat because it's flavorful. But, nobody would ever take it with a real feat slot.

Demon Killer - Great name. I've been tempted by this because of that and because Will saves suck for a lot of characters, but the reality is that it doesn't do much and it's obnoxious to be constantly sinking feats into improving Will saves when a barbarian with a code of honor can put feats into ubercleave, uberinitiative, or whatever. One of the supplements has a way better feat for Terror checks, as well.

Exotic Weapon Proficiency - It should come with some sort of bonus like +1 to hit and +2 damage. I wouldn't even bother making this a reward feat. I'd just make it a flat reward for someone's character concept or experiences since it doesn't really do anything you couldn't do by playing a specific race or a barbarian.

Far Shot - Like your typical PC could hurt anything with unpoisoned ranged weapons anyway.

Greater Critical - Has the problem anything does with increasing the chances of crits - killing stuff isn't that hard. Once you need something like a crit with your standard weapon, you might be fighting something immune to them, immune to your weapon (demons), etc.

Great Fortitude - As much as it's nice to make massive damage saves, this is way too narrow for such a paltry bonus. At least Lightning Reflexes helps initiative and Iron Will helps with something that's really hard to help if you play certain classes. It's painful to take those two since there are much stronger feats in most cases and the gains are modest, but I'd have to be pretty desperate for something to do to take Fortitude with a PC.

...

Anything involving sundering or disarming - It's so much easier to just kill things. The times you want to unarm someone are so much fewer than the times you could just waste your enemies.

...

Anything involving archery - Archery is just so weak. The number of feats you sink into doing things productive is absurd compared to just taking Power Attack and Cleave. I wouldn't want my character to be only good at one thing in combat like archery (yet that's precisely what my first Conan character did and still wasn't useful).

...

Anything mounted - I just don't envision too many narrow Conan campaigns. This has similar problems to the favorite terrain abilities of classes. Just too many situations when you have an ability you can't use.


That's glancing through the main book and ignoring some feats I'd only take because they were requirements for ones I might actually want. Take a look at some of the supplement feats; they are so ridiculously specialized and often do so little when they do trigger. As options for NPCs, okay, whatever. But, why can't feats make some effort to be balanced so that PCs don't all look alike?

BTW, regarding seeing "Improved X" feats, I'd expect Improved Feint to be taken frequently because sneak attack damage is so good in Conan. Improved Grapple is better for NPCs as a way to screw over players, but it should be useful often enough for PCs as well.
 
Thanks for the insight, Ichabod.
(I suppose on most D&D boards you would now be torn to shreds)

I don't think the skill boosters are useless, just too weak to choose

That's what I was trying to say. ^^

Archer's Bane - Way too narrow.

I agree. In D&D there was the Deflect Arrows feat, that allowed you to dodge _one_ ranged attack per round by a ref save. I don't think anyone ever bought it, but it came for free with the Monk class.

Armoured Stealth - You already wasted a feat on Stealthy,

It's probably more for NPCs, and burning two feats to negate a -3 ACP is really not such a great deal. Again I totally agree.

Blind-Fight - At least when it's useful, it could be useful. Still way too narrow.

It was much more useful in D&D when you had to deal with incorporeal or invisible creatures on a regular basis. In Conan, it probably triggers only due to bad visibility (from rain or fog through total darkness).


I agree this would be a great freebie feat. ^^

Demon Killer - Great name.

Note that as per RAW it may even be counter-productive for a Barbarian, as it would prevent him from raging against a monster type he previously encountered. So it may require some tweaking to really be a feat in the sense of advantage.

Exotic Weapon Proficiency - It should come with some sort of bonus like +1 to hit and +2 damage.

That would be three feats in one: the Proficiency, Weapon Focus and Weapon specialization. Not a good idea. It's true that the "Exotic" classification in Conan is more of a joke. Whether a weapon is Simple, Martial or Exotic should depend solely on how difficult it is to wield effectively (and without hurting yourself), not on its country of origin.
If you want to make the feat more useful, simply have it apply to "all exotic melee weapons" or "all exotic ranged weapons" by the player's choice. Stick a +10 BAB prereq on it so it doesn't get better than Versatility.

Far Shot - Like your typical PC could hurt anything with unpoisoned ranged weapons anyway.

Haven't really looked into it much, but I understand it's very difficult to boost damage with ranged attacks, and nigh impossible to inflict Massive Damage (unless you sneak attack at <30ft).

Greater Critical - Has the problem anything does with increasing the chances of crits - killing stuff isn't that hard.

Oh, I consider that one useful. As GM you can always make stuff harder to kill. With those crit-extending feats you don't need a Bardiche to inflict massive damage. If you cut those overpowered weapons down to size, feats like this one get more useful.

Great Fortitude - As much as it's nice to make massive damage saves, this is way too narrow for such a paltry bonus.

I've never taken it, but I usually play warrior types. I think it's more useful for chars with bad Fort progression. Though a Thief or Scholar will still have to roll very well to survive MD.

I wouldn't want my character to be only good at one thing in combat like archery (yet that's precisely what my first Conan character did and still wasn't useful).

Good to know. ;)

Anything mounted - I just don't envision too many narrow Conan campaigns.

That's also what keeps me from specializing in mounted combat. Even if you ride across the plains 90% of the time, the tough opponents seem to prefer hiding in lairs, caves, ruins or castles. Though it's impressive what a Spirited Charge can do, the campaign would have to be pretty much tailored to mounted combat (which in turn requires all PCs to go that route).

Take a look at some of the supplement feats; they are so ridiculously specialized and often do so little when they do trigger.

"Whenever it is full moon, you gain a +1 circumstance bonus to all Craft:Herbalism checks." *g*

BTW, regarding seeing "Improved X" feats, I'd expect Improved Feint to be taken frequently because sneak attack damage is so good in Conan. Improved Grapple is better for NPCs as a way to screw over players, but it should be useful often enough for PCs as well.

Agree with you on the Feint thing. And Grappling just sucks. Players regard it as too complicated, with three rolls to be made just to enter the Grapple, and even if you succeed, as a human you can't really do anything to your opponent that would make it worthwhile. So it's like you say, a way for NPCs (especially monsters) to screw over players. (I like that ^_^).
 
Although the thread has already deviated from the topic, here's my answer :)

I would give experience based on how well the player managed to play his current class. So, if he is playing a thief and manages to convince other players that a sneaky way to handle a situation is best and even succeeds in it I would give quite a lot. On the other hand in the same situation soldier might want to take a more direct approach.

I base this approach to the fact that if you do things that are what that particular class does the character gets more experience and thus gains level faster. But if you don't act like that (so it's far more harder to explain why the character gains new abilities etc.) you get less experience.

The bottom line is still that characters should gain a new level every few sessions (depending on how long sessions are) and higher the character level more sessions are needed. I think this is what was said in Conan rulebook.
 
I would give experience based on how well the player managed to play his current class.

Not necessarily. If someone decides he wants to take a new class, like a Thief wanting to take a level in Soldier, it doesn't help him if he behaves extra thievey. It helps if he practices open melee combat.
So technically, you should reward it if a character acts according to the _next class level_ he is going to take. BUT that would require a player to determine the next class level the moment he levels up, and you can't demand that of a player (or at least you shouldn't).
Most players may have a more or less precise plan when they should ideally take what level, but well laid plans of mice and men often go astray. And PCs may be more or less forced at some point to take a level in a class they had never planned (maybe because they need that extra feat _right friggin now_). As a GM, I wouldn't impose such limitations on my players.

Besides, it gets increasingly complicated for a GM to decide what is good interpretation of a multiclass, like maybe the aforementioned Soldier/Thief or other combinations like Nomad/Pirate, to come up with something a bit more fancy. Should he ride on a camel yelling "Avast, ye scurvy dogs"? *g*

So, while basically I think it's okay to reward good roleplaying, which includes a Thief wanting to take a sneaky route, I wouldn't write any of that in stone, and rather see how a PC's personality develops.
You mileage may vary, and I reserve the right to claim the opposite tomorrow.
 
Yes, exactly my bad :oops: I really meaned that the you should act like the class that you are advancing to (or advancing in). I would not make a distinction whether the character has one or multiple classes all I care is the class that he/she is trying to improve.

Personally I don't give a rat's a** whether a player wants/needs a feat or not. If there is no roleplaying aspect to raise that particular class I don't see why I would allow it (especially if it comes to changing class to another from current class). Yes, I know it sounds harsh but that's my way to handle GMing.

On the other hand players can't necessarily dictate what happens and sometimes it would be more logical to change the class (to pirate for example if you have been a pirate for the whole level).

It's a tough questions especially when multiclassing is so easy and even expected as it is in Conan RPG.
 
I assign the player's character's next class based on their peformance during the previous level. If they want a certain class, they need to act like it. If they do something else, their next class will reflect it. A guy planning on being a thief next level who is caught and pressed into service and spends the whole level acting as a soldier, is going to get SOLDIER when he levels up, I dont care what he intended or how it effects his master plan.
 
*shudder* Well, I for one would never do that, force a particular class upon a player. I absolutely hate, loathe and despise any occasions of the game or the GM determining my character directly (some indirect incentives are a totally different story though) (*). So by categorigal imperative I am not going to treat my players that way, either.

Whether access to new classes is restricted should be determined in the group contract; I for one say that a character should always be allowed to advance a class he already has regardless of circumstances.

*) Like "natural attribute distribution", i.e. you assign the figures in the order you rolled em up, and then see what kind of character you get. I had that once in a game called Midgard, where the GM insisted on assigning _everything_ randomly, from Strength and Intelligence down to height and weight. I ended up with a Conjurer although I never wanted to play a magic user at all, but it was the only profession the stats were usable for. I didn't play in that group for long. It simply wasn't a lot of fun being stuck with a character you hate.
Had quite the argument with the GM, his point was "you can't choose that freely because you can't choose those things in real life, either", to which I replied "I know I can't choose it in real life, that is EXACTLY the reason why I play a role-playing game to begin with."
(Note that now, many years later, that GM is embarassed that he ever acted that way.)

Just my two copper. Everything you rule is fine as long as the players are happy with it.
 
I totally agree with Clovenhoof. The only restriction in the rules are for the access to the Noble class. I only restrict access to a new class for a character for logical reasons, if the level increase is during a story. If he is in a landlocked setting, I will not allow him to take Pirate levels (except if he is already a pirate). And if the level increase is between two different stories I let him take whatever class he wants (except Noble). I assume my PC had the opportunities to learn different things if he had enough time.
 
By the way: WHEN do you allow your players to level up?
Do you do it the very instant that a levelup occurs, interrupting the game for it? That's like, if you give out XP for every fight on the fly.
Or do you wait until next rest, like when they set up camp at nightfall?
Or do you only allow it between when the characters have several weeks at their disposal?
 
Clovenhoof said:
By the way: WHEN do you allow your players to level up?
Do you do it the very instant that a levelup occurs, interrupting the game for it? That's like, if you give out XP for every fight on the fly.
No.
Or do you wait until next rest, like when they set up camp at nightfall?
Or do you only allow it between when the characters have several weeks at their disposal?
I never interrupt the game to make a level increase. The rythm of the adventure should not be altered. When we end a game session, the scenario is not always finished. But I try to stop the session at an appropriate moment (not in the middle of a scene), when the characters will set up camp per example. If they have at least a day or two of rest, I let them level-up between two sessions. That's the moments were I use (little) restrictions to level increases as I said earlier.
 
As to when I allow characters to level up, I do so between game sessions and during lulls in the in-game action.

Im a bit suprised to hear the negative response to my post above. I want trying to be tyrannical but I cant imagine giving free reign to a player to choose a class for their character that they could not have realistically gained the experience and skills for. You mention the Pirate Class above but extend that analogy a bit futher. If a character spent the entire level adventuring within the Arenjun walls, how could you allow them to level up as a barbarian? What if they spent a long adventure dealing with Tarantian court intrigue and they elect to go up in Borderer a level? Come one, it has to make sense for pete's sake. My players are at least logical enough to realize this and have never questioned the way I approach leveling. They know before I levy a decision what makes sense and usually make the choice without my influence. Id be extremely dissapointed if my Aquilonian Noble player spent a level fighting a border incursion and leading his region's troops in battle only to have him claim his next level to be "Thief", its rediculous.
 
rgrove0172 said:
If a character spent the entire level adventuring within the Arenjun walls, how could you allow them to level up as a barbarian? What if they spent a long adventure dealing with Tarantian court intrigue and they elect to go up in Borderer a level?
If your PC is already a barbarian, why not let him advance as a barbarian ? I will always let a player advance in his former class.
Id be extremely dissapointed if my Aquilonian Noble player spent a level fighting a border incursion and leading his region's troops in battle only to have him claim his next level to be "Thief", its rediculous.
If he levels up during the story, I could admit such restriction. But after the adventure, no. If one of my players did exactly what you said and tells me "I want to take a level of Thief", I will say to him: "then, after your time with the army, you spent three months spying your Lord's enemies" or something along those lines. But it's not a big problem Rgrove. It's a matter of taste. Some players need to be directed and others want more freedom.
Clovenhoof said:
Everything you rule is fine as long as the players are happy with it.
I will only add "as long as the players and the GM are happy with it."
 
I agree its not a big deal, sorry if I sounded a bit too passionate on the subject. Its just that some of the replies sounded sort of accusatory, like I was doing something wrong by requiring a realistic explanation for why a character gains the skills and such a level and class provide. Your right of course that if you add it in during a lull between adventures, you can reason almost anything. Even the Pirate thing could be logically permitted. "You spend the rest of the year sailing for Turan on the Vilayet".
 
i would never force one of my players to take a specific class just like i wouldnt want it to happen to me, but i will stop them from taking a new class if they cant justify it(noble and pirate always the best examples here). they are always free to take levels in whatever class they've taken before.
 
Back
Top