How much magic in your game?

[Supplement Four]

I'm looking over the magic rules in Conan. I figure I'll throw an NPC spell caster against the group sooner or later.

I'm not sure how I feel about the magic in this game.

On the one hand, it is written to be mysterious and arcane--much different from a D&D mage. And, this is down right perfect for Conan, ain't it?

OTOH, it doesn't seem like it would be fun at all to play a Sorcerer. The spells and stuff just doesn't look "interesting" from a player's point of view. Granting, I've just skimmed through the basics. But, as I was skimming, the feeling I got was that these were more rules for the GM to use on NPCs rather than having a PC interested in them.

Am I wrong? Do your players love to play Sorcerers?

 

[Malcadon]

I have read a number of threads about magic-use in Conan. Much of it was about how unbalanced or chunky the system is, and some was about abolishing it all together. The more interesting ones are about creative uses for Scholars. A good example, is to use trickery and slight-of-hand to supplement their abilities. Using slight-of-hand and a firebomb to simulate a fireball spell (which scared the hell out of the players it was used ageist). Using intimidation and the reputation of the Scholar's as a powerful sorcerer to instill total control over weaker minds (commoners and low-level NPCs). Lot of other great ideas, but I cant remember the post it was on.

I also strongly recommend the Savant variant Scholar class system. This is not a whole new system, but some alterations to the normal system to make Scholar more interesting at low levels, allow for more role-playing though spell research (for all backgrounds), removing the strict limitations of spells at each level (which really butthurts players at high-level), and even revising a good number of the spells for game-balance and for better role-playing (the Ill-Fortune spells for example, do a lot more then just give out penalties).

 

[Style]

I don't play d20, so I don't have an opinion, but everyone seems to like Thulsa's Savant: http://hyboria.xoth.net/classes/savant.pdf

Edit: Malcadon beat me to it, recommending the savant. Posting around the same time I guess.

 

[Vortigern]

Personally I'm a big fan of the class, though I do very much like the Savant class and indeed a lot of the variant rules on Thulsa's site. That said...

I think there are a few key things which, when remembered and applied properly, reveal how and why the scholar is deceptively strong and interesting.

Firstly, the scarcity of magic in general. What they can do, any of it, even the rudimentary low level applications, is rare in most areas and levels out into uncommon in others.

While there are priesthoods my impression is that only the elite among priests, which we tend to assume PC priests are in, are trained in sorcery at all. Most simply are theologically educated to perform ceremonies etc.

This leads into the second point I have. Magic is awe inspiring. Something as simple as a sorcerer's apprentice throwing some kind of gas bomb and then using conjuring to move the cloud around and put it over secondary targets in subsequent rounds is an amazing display of power and skill in the hyborian age. Not as amazing as a death touch, but amazing.

This awe factor should not be overlooked. Couple this with the defensive blast rules, which carry over into 'It's bad luck to kill a wizard...' and some people are just not going to want to mess with a sorcerer for not other reason than that. They are spooky SOBs. Even spookier if they have good intimidate skill.

This one facet is important for a couple of reasons, but mainly because it means the hordes of NPC warrior types that may, stat-wise, be able to lay waste to your PC sorcerer probably are going to be a lot more reticent to engage him than the stats would make one directly assume. i.e. You never know what kind of death curse he may know, or exactly how powerful he is. Or if he has a demon lord pact that his defensive blast will summon, and then he gets to watch you all get eaten. The unknown and spookiness factor puts the confidence and intimidation factor on the sorcerer's side... usually.

Lastly I think it is important to have a good grasp on the alchemical and herbal 'stuff' available in conan and, IMO, to make it readily available to sorcerers. ( The cult rules in Secrets of Skelos do a little bit here, as well as the Savant alchemy rules. ) In general I think GMs seem to be too stingy with this stuff because it is so much more powerful than D&D alchemical items... and they are used to items/expendables of such potency being hard to come by. Personally I consider this a large portion of the class abilities/benefits of the scholar... being the guy who makes and/or has all of this nifty stuff to whip out and use at just the right time. Whether it is some healing herbs to boost that short term care total or a 'globe of demon-fire' that blows up three bad-guys... it is all very 'Conan-esque' in flavor and gives the scholar the proceeds he paid for in putting all of those skill points into alchemy, herbalism, and sleight of hand.

While in some instances, particularly more often encounters that are purely combat oriented and unexpected, the Scholar turns into more of a support guy who just tries not to get hit until the fight is over... that certainly isn't the case if the game allows them ( and they take the initiative to do it ) to spend time doing research, being ready for things, and striking in 'just the right way' as it were.

For more on that... I do suggest reading some of the older sorcery threads, some of which I commented on.

 

[Supplement Four]

A good example, is to use trickery and slight-of-hand to supplement their abilities. Using slight-of-hand and a firebomb to simulate a fireball spell (which scared the hell out of the players it was used ageist). Using intimidation and the reputation of the Scholar's as a powerful sorcerer to instill total control over weaker minds (commoners and low-level NPCs).

I think those are excellent ideas. And, I think it will be "fun" for a GM to use an NPC scholar this way.

The question, though, is about players playing Sorcerers. Will players who are interested in sorcerery find fun in rolling a Slight-of-Hand throw and throwing a chemical firebomb? Or, faking people out with their intimidation skills?

My players probably would, but that's because they're role players. But...I think the typical player interested in playing a sorcerer would be dissatisfied in this game.

Does it fit the Conan universe?

I think it does. It does in my version of the Conan universe anyway. I like the way magic is done.

But, I'm not sure if a lot of players will be attracted to playing a scholar.

Maybe I'm wrong. It's just a thought.

How many of you GMs out there have sorcerers in your gaming groups?

The Ill-Fortune spells for example, do a lot more then just give out penalties).

I think that's part of the problem from a player point of view. The spells themselves aren't that interesting.

Yes, I think they fit the "Conan" universe peferctly. They have the Conan atmosphere.

But, I'm wondering if the Scholar class (maybe not the class...maybe just magic use) should be an NPC only thing...or, due to player interest, becomes a NPC-only thing in most games.

After all. Read a Conan tale, and the sorerers are always the bad guys. It's the dude with steel that wins the day.

 

[Malcadon]

But, I'm wondering if the Scholar class (maybe not the class...maybe just magic use) should be an NPC only thing...or, due to player interest, becomes a NPC-only thing in most games.

After all. Read a Conan tale, and the sorerers are always the bad guys. It's the dude with steel that wins the day.

Not all Sorcerers in the Conan fiction are bad guys. Zelata the Witch from Hour of the Dragon, is such an example.

A PC Sorcerer with counterspells is would be helpful when dealing with NPC Sorcerers. Having one with prestidigitation (and the slight-of-hand that gose with it) is good, if you like the type of gaming that I noted above. Yes, Scholar dont have as big a role in combat as a Wizard do in D&D, but they are more about role-playing in the Conan game - much like the Noble or the Temptress. If your players just like kicking ass, then such classes are not for them.

Just multi-classing as a Scholar could help with other classes. A Barbarian or Border with nature magic would make for a good D&Dish Druid. Thieves and prestidigitation go hand-in-hand. Temptresses and Nobles with hypnotism have unearthly charm. Oriental magic can supplement any warrior class.

One of my favorite class-combos is the Temptress-Scholar Courtesan. In D&D, they would be the Chosen of Graz'zt or the Courtesans of Idra (from Scacrred Lands). In both cases, they are information gatherers and manipulators on a political scale. They would usually know hypnotism, divination, maybe curses, and immortality for the Chosen. The Chosen of Graz'zt is more of a NPC type. The Courtesans of Idra make for a good PC type, and its not hard to incorporate into the Hyborian setting (if any of the players dont mind playing a prostitute/spy).

 

[kintire]

I think that's part of the problem from a player point of view. The spells themselves aren't that interesting.

Yes, I think they fit the "Conan" universe peferctly. They have the Conan atmosphere.

But, I'm wondering if the Scholar class (maybe not the class...maybe just magic use) should be an NPC only thing...or, due to player interest, becomes a NPC-only thing in most games.

A Scholar is not like a DnD Wizard, who is essentially about his spells. A scholar is also, if not mostly, about skills. I have two scholars in my group of six, and they seem to be having fun: but you can't rely on magic all the time.

 

[Vortigern]

Exactly. Magic is a huge edge, but it isn't something you can rely on all the time. It is the big stick you pull out when you really really need to. The rest of the time you rely on the other things you know, that aren't quite so dangerous to employ.

This, to me, is very swords & sorcery, and thus I love it. It encourages the strategic and tactical planning that I think is in theme for sorcerers/scholars. The invulnerable howitzer that a D&D mage can eventually turn themselves into isn't to be found here... it doesn't fit. The only problems with player satisfaction and desire in this arena, in my mind, will be players who can't get over that D&D image of what a mage 'should' be like.

 

[Style]

A good example, is to use trickery and slight-of-hand to supplement their abilities. Using slight-of-hand and a firebomb to simulate a fireball spell (which scared the hell out of the players it was used ageist). Using intimidation and the reputation of the Scholar's as a powerful sorcerer to instill total control over weaker minds (commoners and low-level NPCs).

I think those are excellent ideas. And, I think it will be "fun" for a GM to use an NPC scholar this way.

The question, though, is about players playing Sorcerers. Will players who are interested in sorcerery find fun in rolling a Slight-of-Hand throw and throwing a chemical firebomb? Or, faking people out with their intimidation skills?

If a DM rewards this kind of play and gives the sorcerer the power/respect/reputation that is his due, then players would probably have fun.

In my game, one of the ways I reward sorcerers is anyone who sees magic cast for the first time has to make a fear check or they freak out (usually running away screaming). They have to keep making the save every time they see magic (or what they perceive to be magic, in the case of slight of hand) until they have a successful save. Likewise, if some one is known to be a sorcerer, you have to make a fear save or suffer penalties vs their intimidation checks.

 

[quigs]

Way back when I GM'd d20, I had a Stygian scholar in my group who had a Demonic Pact. The group was scared of him, he was a badass. He was sacrificing people a number of times on the battlefield thanks to the feats he took, and nuking others with his alchemical items.

He only once summoned his demon for combat purposes to kill the corrupt captain of the guard in a town they were in. After that, the group gave him lots of lee-way, lest they invoke his wraith.

But of course, now, like Styles, I have moved on to the wonderful world of Savage Worlds, and such issues are no longer a concern.

 

[Stygian Devout]

They are spooky SOBs. Even spookier if they have good intimidate skill.

Hehe my scholar had something like +15 Intimidate by 6th level.

Sorcerers in Conan rock! Spells like Blindness (opponents eyeballs fly from their sockets to your hand) seal the deal for me

 

[Malcadon]

Hehe my scholar had something like +15 Intimidate by 6th level.

Sorcerers in Conan rock! Spells like Blindness (opponents eyeballs fly from their sockets to your hand) seal the deal for me

Or the Draw Forth the Heart spell. You cast that spell on someone, and everyone in eyeshot would piss all over themselves!

I remember Wizards made such a spell for the Book of Vile Darkness, but it (like a lot of thing Wizards make) written in such a dry and bland way. It only teleported the heart to the casters hand! (for a book that tries to be evil in such a garish and over-the-top way, such a magical heart transplant feels a bit lame)

By the way, the scariest spell I can think of is Natohk casting Dance of Atali... on himself! Their are reasons why his is the veiled one!!! :shock: LOL

 

[LilithsThrall]

Yes, Scholar dont have as big a role in combat as a Wizard do in D&D, but they are more about role-playing in the Conan game - much like the Noble or the Temptress.

This is a major pet peeve of mine. The idea that classes are either "more about role-playing" or more about combat and that's the way it's suppossed to be is bullshit.
Classes should be equally fun to roleplay and effective in combat - even though different classes should have different ways to be fun to roleplay and have different ways of being effective.

 

[Vortigern]

That sounds like a play style/philosophy issue.

Personally I am 'OK' with having some classes that are combat focused and some that are, for example, socially focused. It makes things more 'diverse' in a manner of speaking. As long as both are supported in the game by the gm, all is good imo. It only becomes a problem if the gameplay style of the group favors one over the other.

I think that is the basic assumption, that classes have different focus areas some of which are not combat, in the design of the classes for this game. To me, that much is obvious.

Now... I will however say that a well prepared social or other ( sorcery anyone? ) non 'combat' character can move mountains in the arena of combat.

A temptress or noble for example shouldn't be showing up to a fight by themselves. Ever. Not even at first level, unless they are ambushed. It is just a monumental level of stupid and misplay of the character IMO. Nobles have guards. Higher level nobles have armies. Temptresses have nobles, who have the above. Plain and simple.

Sorcerers? They usually have guards as well. Especially if they are in a cult of some kind. And nothing says 'Back the F--- Off.' like firebomb turning someone into spaghetti.

In short... noncombat characters properly exerting their influence often can exert a disproportionately greater ammount of 'combat power'. It is part of what the classes are designed for IMO. Sure, sending in your ten goons to help out the party combat characters isn't shining in the limelight like they are. But it sure makes a difference in the fight and makes sure they feel like you are 'contributing' as it were. It just doesn't seem like a big issue to me. There are plenty of ways to arrange things to your benefit with these other classes.

 

[LilithsThrall]

That sounds like a play style/philosophy issue.

Personally I am 'OK' with having some classes that are combat focused and some that are, for example, socially focused. It makes things more 'diverse' in a manner of speaking. As long as both are supported in the game by the gm, all is good imo. It only becomes a problem if the gameplay style of the group favors one over the other.

I think that is the basic assumption, that classes have different focus areas some of which are not combat, in the design of the classes for this game. To me, that much is obvious.

Now... I will however say that a well prepared social or other ( sorcery anyone? ) non 'combat' character can move mountains in the arena of combat.

A temptress or noble for example shouldn't be showing up to a fight by themselves. Ever. Not even at first level, unless they are ambushed. It is just a monumental level of stupid and misplay of the character IMO. Nobles have guards. Higher level nobles have armies. Temptresses have nobles, who have the above. Plain and simple.

Sorcerers? They usually have guards as well. Especially if they are in a cult of some kind. And nothing says 'Back the F--- Off.' like firebomb turning someone into spaghetti.

In short... noncombat characters properly exerting their influence often can exert a disproportionately greater ammount of 'combat power'. It is part of what the classes are designed for IMO. Sure, sending in your ten goons to help out the party combat characters isn't shining in the limelight like they are. But it sure makes a difference in the fight and makes sure they feel like you are 'contributing' as it were. It just doesn't seem like a big issue to me. There are plenty of ways to arrange things to your benefit with these other classes.

I think we're saying the same thing. There are plenty of ways, conceptually, a charismatic character can be good at combat. There are plenty of ways a, for example, soldier can conceptually be good in non-combat. The distinction between "role-play classes" and "combat classes" should be bullshit.

 

[Vortigern]

Can a soldier be good in non-combat situations? Sure. Depending on the soldier I suppose.

But should he be as good as a noble? A noble who is staying true to his social focus? The odds are low that he will be in the same league as the noble in the social arena.

The soldier class just isn't optimal for developing a social character. It is designed with a combat focus in mind. A soldier with some levels on him who has some social focus put into him would to my thinking be a good sergeant or officer type. But that doesn't make them 'super-suave' like the politician-esque noble who is pulling strings to get the army sent on this or that campaign to begin with.

That is what I mean by different focus, with different realms of influence. That is why I think a social character, properly played and supported, can at times have a 'disproportionate' ammount of combat power. More than the 'combat' characters.

Does it really matter how good you are with your sword if the noble you are trying to fight has his two or three hundred followers ( it is hard to count them all ) squaring off against you with him? I don't think so.

Which isn't to say I think combat characters don't have their place or obvious advantages as well. But expecting them to be better or even equal to a social focus character at anything other than fighting is as illogical as expecting the social character to be their equal in combat. It breaks down the idea of character classes and their construction as it has been done in the game. Which is what I was trying to illustrate in my previous post, kind of.

It sounds like you prefer a play approach similar to the 4th Ed D&D approach where all characters are ultimately mechanically equal and everything else is basically flavor/concept?

 

[Ichabod]

What I prefer is for every character being relevant to every scene. It's seriously boring waiting for the combat characters to end their combats or for the talky characters to finish their negotiations or any other situation where some of the party has no impact on the scene.

Now, most of the burden for solving this is on the GM. I wonder how many how to be a better GM articles are written about how to engage a whole party in every scene.

Where the mechanics come into it, though, is when certain classes/whatever can't really function outside of their primary sphere. I see the soldier as being a good example of this. Nobles can contribute to most fight scenes. With the soldier's feeble skill ranks, though, it's much harder than it should be to be well-rounded.

Note also that this is a major thing that breaks magic-users in most RPGs - magic gives them the flexibility to be good or better at many things to where it's easy to overshadow mundanes.

 

[Supplement Four]

What I prefer is for every character being relevant to every scene. It's seriously boring waiting for the combat characters to end their combats or for the talky characters to finish their negotiations or any other situation where some of the party has no impact on the scene.

Why won't they have impact on the scene?

I don't know if you've been following the thread on my campaign, but the three PCs I have in my game certainly aren't stat-busters by any means. One first level City Watchman (Soldier) and two first level theives.

The first level thieves both have STR 7. Which means -2 damage. And, right now, they've got poinards for weaons (1d6 damage).

This means, going up against a leather armored foe, they've got to roll a 5 or 6 on damage just to get 1 point of damage (by the minimum damage rule).

Leather = DR 4.
STR = -2 dam

Armor is not subject to the min dam rule, so if they roll a 1-4, it's 0 damage.

A successful sneak attack is the only time they do respectible damage (1-4 with poinard plus 1-8 sneak attack damage).

What they're hoping to do, of course, is strike with finesse. But, of course, that's harder to do (4 points harder). If they strike, they'll do 1-4 damage, with the emphasis on "1" because of their -2 STR penalty.

Point being: This isn't keeping the thieves out of the action. Last game session, two bandits were killed (each wearing leather and carrying arming swords--more dangerous characters than the PCs), and it was one of the thieves--not the Watchman--that did the killing (although the others helped).

Some would say that these thieves aren't "combat thieves", but I think that's nonsense. A player just has to realize his character's weaknesses and try to build the character in spite of them.

For example, we've been discussing, in between games, how to make the two theives more combat capable. And, we've come up with a lot of stuff.

Here's some of our thoughts

1. Build up the Bluff skill and use the Feint combat maneuver often, taking advantage of the theives' Sneak Attack ability. Consider other combat maneuvers, too.

2. Get better melee weapons. Trade in the poinards for arming swords. Or, a staff makes a damn good thief weapon, and it is has reach.

3. Consider fighting with two weapons. Arming sword and poinard makes a good choice. Combine this with the Two Weapon Combat Feat, and it's a dynamite choice.

4. Look at all feats that would benefit the characters and build upon them. Dodge (better dodge); Toughness (more hit points); Skill Focus (on something like Bluff for the Feint maneuver). Etc.

5. Better armor. Chain is DR -5, plus helm, would be -6 DR, only suffering a -3 armor check penalty.

6. Distance weapon. STR makes bows, slings, and thrown weapons a hampered choice. But, there's still crossbows!

7. Alchemy. Consider making combustable, blinding, distracting chemicals for combat. Something that can be thrown on the ground to explode, make noise, or give off smoke..etc. Maybe something to throw in an opponent's eyes.

8. Use your noggin'! Always think tactically and strategically. Don't start a fight (or enter a fight) you can't finish. Never rush into combat. Avoid it when possible. Fight dirty. Be sneaky.

9. Always attempt to go first in a combat, get in the first blow. Take Improved Initiative feat to enable this. This way, on the first round, others are considered flat footed and subject to sneak attack.





So, you get the idea. These are very normal characters, stat-wise, but the players are scheming to make them more effective.

In short, I think just about every character can be effective in combat, if he's played to his ability.

 

[Vortigern]

What I prefer is for every character being relevant to every scene. It's seriously boring waiting for the combat characters to end their combats or for the talky characters to finish their negotiations or any other situation where some of the party has no impact on the scene.

Now, most of the burden for solving this is on the GM. I wonder how many how to be a better GM articles are written about how to engage a whole party in every scene.

Where the mechanics come into it, though, is when certain classes/whatever can't really function outside of their primary sphere. I see the soldier as being a good example of this. Nobles can contribute to most fight scenes. With the soldier's feeble skill ranks, though, it's much harder than it should be to be well-rounded.

Note also that this is a major thing that breaks magic-users in most RPGs - magic gives them the flexibility to be good or better at many things to where it's easy to overshadow mundanes.

Then this is definately a play style issue.

I think every character is entitled to a certain ammount of personal attention from the GM. Maybe each character gets their own sub-thread of the plot for example. But that is a far cry from saying every character should have a custom designed moment to shine in every scene.

To me that is... unrealistic. If that play style were movie I'm imagining it would also have very cluttered scenes that would have me thinking poorly of the editing.

I suppose I'm more of the 'everyone should get their moment to shine' type. And the more I think of it, the more I disagree with you. If everyone is 'shining' all the time... then really, no one is. It all evens out. The point of 'time in the spotlight' is to try and make each character have depth and feel special to their player, and indeed to the rest of the group. This, in my experience, requires those moments that make everyone focus on what is the active character for that critical scene/moment/whatever.

It does raise the issue that I actually prefer troupe style play from Ars Magica, but that is something else entirely and not well suited to the typical 'adventure group' d20 game. ( Which I rarely attempt to play. )

 

[Ichabod]

Who said anything about shining?

I'm talking about being relevant, i.e. contributing in some meaningful way.