How to give high level PC challenge with bunch of mobs?

[Constantine XI]

Farming? Really? Is that what Conan stories are about? I must be missing something. Meanwhile, NPCs will continue to function exactly as the needs of the narrative would have them function, and rules be damned. That's what we did in the old days, that's what the current D&D rules are again recommending. If I need a dramatically-significant combat between my heroic PCs and some city watchmen, then, by God, dramatically-significant it will be. The rules are meant to promote fun, not hinder it. I like to think that the players trust me sufficiently to allow me to run an exciting game, for the benefit of all.

 

[Clovenhoof]

Just a little, short comment on NPC levels because I am in a hurry:
they have a life and usually a trade. In their trade, they would earn a certain amount of XP. Maybe 10XP per day. That adds up over the years and decades. I haven't the time now to do the math, but I daresay it will be enough to get a normal tradesman to level 6ish before he retires.

 

[Demetrio]

Say he earns 50/week or 2500 a year (allowing for the odd holy day and so on).

Say he begins work at 14.

By 34 he will have earned 50 000 xp. That'd make him level 10 I think.

By 54 (shortly before he drops dead) he'd have 100 000 and be level 14.

10/day is looking quite a lot to me.

Generally I tend to give npcs who are not members of a recognised class 10 hp +/- their Con bonus (usually 0) and skills at whatever rank I see fit. I don't particularly see the point in applying xp and levels to folk who are basically non-combatants (I've nothing against it as an idea, it's perfectly a sensible approach).

 

[PrinceYyrkoon]

Guys walking around in full plate isnt Conan to my mind.

Except when it is. Hour of the Dragon and the Scarlet Citadel come to mind. Guys in breastplates and plate mail abound. But of course, that was during a time of war of heavily armed and armored troops and not everyday use. :wink:

And while the fallen king stared with burning eyes that reflected the bitter rage and humiliation that ate his heart, the squires stripped Valannus of mail shirt, burganet and leg-pieces, and clad him in Conan's armor of black plate mail, with the vizored salade, and the dark plumes nodding over the wivern crest.

I suppose I could revise it to 'Guys walking around in plate isnt generally Conan to my mind'. The probelm comes because no game adequately describes the advantages of not wearing any armour. Its probably right not to, because there isnt any real advantage in not wearing any in a combat situation. I would still say the problems of invincibility at high levels in the Conan game can be partially offset by restrictions on armour availability.

 

[treeplanter]

A 1st leveler with 14 in a skill? Explain that one. I just dont see a 1st level thief with 14 in disable devise, or spot. Andd if he cant, then how can a 1st level farmer have 14 in farm.

p 138 from Aquilonia: FOTW.

True Prefessional.

Benefit: You may ignore level-based rank limits imposed upon any one Craft or Profession skill.

Won't work on spot or disable device. So a commoner 1st level get (2+int) x 4 skills. That 12 points if he have 12 intel. So he could put all in a single craft or profession. He would probably choose the same as a background skills, so 2+12 = 14 rank at level one.

 

[zozotroll]

Optimized farmer

I dont have that one, thanks. I dont think it is a good idea, cuz the wolf is still going to eat you if you dont spot it.

No I dont want to play a farmer, but I like internal consistancy.

It comes to a conflict between Narrative style and simulationist style. Many love nrative, and more power to them. I am first and always a simulationist. And I certainly feel Conan is big enough to handle both, even if I dont agree about how to go about it.

 

[flatscan]

I suppose I could revise it to 'Guys walking around in plate isnt generally Conan to my mind'. The probelm comes because no game adequately describes the advantages of not wearing any armour. Its probably right not to, because there isnt any real advantage in not wearing any in a combat situation. I would still say the problems of invincibility at high levels in the Conan game can be partially offset by restrictions on armour availability.

Well, d20 does have Armor Check Penalties which for plate mail is severe. I personally find the near invincibility of armor in this game to be fitting to the genre. Look for example at the text from Queen of the Black Coast:

In an instant he was the center of a hurricane of stabbing spears and lashing clubs. But he moved in a blinding blur of steel. Spears bent on his armor or swished empty air, and his sword sang its death-song. The fighting-madness of his race was upon him, and with a red mist of unreasoning fury wavering before his blazing eyes, he cleft skulls, smashed breasts, severed limbs, ripped out entrails, and littered the deck like a shambles with a ghastly harvest of brains and blood.

Invulnerable in his armor, his back against the mast, he heaped mangled corpses at his feet until his enemies gave back panting in rage and fear. Then as they lifted their spears to cast them, and he tensed himself to leap and die in the midst of them, a shrill cry froze the lifted arms. They stood like statues, the black giants poised for the spearcasts, the mailed swordsman with his dripping blade.

But I definitely see the wisdom in making the heaviest of armor hard to come by and relieving troublesome armor between adventures when the PCs won't be in war situations. For instance now that they're pirates those who wear armor are sporting leather jerkins instead of mail hauberks.

 

[Korppis]

I suppose I could revise it to 'Guys walking around in plate isnt generally Conan to my mind'. The probelm comes because no game adequately describes the advantages of not wearing any armour. Its probably right not to, because there isnt any real advantage in not wearing any in a combat situation. I would still say the problems of invincibility at high levels in the Conan game can be partially offset by restrictions on armour availability.

Do you mean something like a mechanical advantage for not wearing armour (like Pendragon's +5 to combat check for knights who fight unarmoured).
I could hardly see any point in that... Being unarmoured can be seen more or less ordinary situation, wearing the armour is the exception that brings modifiers. Like in Conan where armour gives you DR but at same time it makes most of the physical activities (like climbing, jumping... and also fighting if you dont have feat to use it) harder and also drops your maximum dexterity.

In Howard's stories Conan can be seen wearing anything from simple loincloth to full plate harness. Usually gear he wears is more or less based on the situation. In sories like Scarlet Citadel or Frost giant's daughter where he had just been taking part on a battle, or stories where he is acting as a mercenary he is wearing metal armour.
On the other hand when armour would not be practicat, like in his youth when he was thief (Tower of Elephant, Rogues on a House), or when leaving the island with a leaking boat (Pool of the Black One) or when he knows he has long climbing ahead (Jewels of Gwahlur) he will go in as light gear as possible.

 

[PrinceYyrkoon]

I suppose I could revise it to 'Guys walking around in plate isnt generally Conan to my mind'. The probelm comes because no game adequately describes the advantages of not wearing any armour. Its probably right not to, because there isnt any real advantage in not wearing any in a combat situation. I would still say the problems of invincibility at high levels in the Conan game can be partially offset by restrictions on armour availability.

Well, d20 does have Armor Check Penalties which for plate mail is severe. I personally find the near invincibility of armor in this game to be fitting to the genre. Look for example at the text from Queen of the Black Coast:

In an instant he was the center of a hurricane of stabbing spears and lashing clubs. But he moved in a blinding blur of steel. Spears bent on his armor or swished empty air, and his sword sang its death-song. The fighting-madness of his race was upon him, and with a red mist of unreasoning fury wavering before his blazing eyes, he cleft skulls, smashed breasts, severed limbs, ripped out entrails, and littered the deck like a shambles with a ghastly harvest of brains and blood.

Invulnerable in his armor, his back against the mast, he heaped mangled corpses at his feet until his enemies gave back panting in rage and fear. Then as they lifted their spears to cast them, and he tensed himself to leap and die in the midst of them, a shrill cry froze the lifted arms. They stood like statues, the black giants poised for the spearcasts, the mailed swordsman with his dripping blade.

But I definitely see the wisdom in making the heaviest of armor hard to come by and relieving troublesome armor between adventures when the PCs won't be in war situations. For instance now that they're pirates those who wear armor are sporting leather jerkins instead of mail hauberks.

Wearing metal armour on board ship is just asking for trouble! 'Man o'er board!' :lol: I guess is a time where plate armour would be a drawback.

 

[treeplanter]

Optimized farmer

I dont have that one, thanks. I dont think it is a good idea, cuz the wolf is still going to eat you if you dont spot it.

No I dont want to play a farmer, but I like internal consistancy.

It comes to a conflict between Narrative style and simulationist style. Many love nrative, and more power to them. I am first and always a simulationist. And I certainly feel Conan is big enough to handle both, even if I dont agree about how to go about it.

Wolf don't eat human tought
But I agree it would not make sense to put all your rank in a skills would not make sense for a farmer, he should probably just choose skill:focus and have other skill.

However maybe a craftman, blacksmith or some other might want to max out his particular skill since it will give him more reputation so, more contract, more money.

 

[Ichabod]

Have a look at the optional combat rules in The Warrior's Combat, particularly the section at Narrative Combat (pg. 23).

I addressed this issue directly.

-Bry

Yeah I use that often, but the thing is I want to be fair when a players take feat that are really good against multiples foes. So if I players have Great cleave or Whirlwind attack, I feel narative combat don't allow him to make use of feat he took for those particular situation.

Haven't read most of this thread, but I have a general philosophy that combat should only be used when it means something - affects the plot, kills PCs, etc.

I'm not the biggest fan of the narrative rules as you don't feel like you are doing anything besides rolling dice to consult a table, and we've used other rules for horde combat that seemed to work adequately, but I'd much rather use the narrative rules than fight out battles where victory is inevitable and nothing really is tied to the results.

Anyway, addressing your concern about someone getting screwed by taking a feat that doesn't ever matter, why was the feat taken in the first place? Either it really does matter or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then have the player change it. It really is that simple.

Now, what seems less simple is having the good communication between GMs and players to where players these occurrences never arise in the first place. It's amazing how hard it seems to have everyone in my various RPG groups to be on the same page about what we want to do with a game.