New to the forums questions/house rules etc

[blackenedwings]

Hey all,

I'm relatively new to the forums although I have been reading through a lot of the older posts for the last couple of days. I have just recently started buying up the Conan suppliments in preparation for a Conan campaign I will be starting soon. I have been DMing for 11+ years now, and had heard nothing but good things about the Conan system. I checked out the AE of the core rulebook and was really impressed, so I'm dragging my regular gaming group into the Hyborian realms. Fortunately one of my regular players is a HUGE fan of Howard, so he was really excited about it.

I have read most of the original Howard stories, and am pretty well caught up on the rules for the campaign so far, but I already have a few house rules I'm planning on, and some questions. I know the first question every new Conan DM asks is "what suppliments should I invest in?"

I have thus far purchased the AE Core book, Scrolls of Skellos, and the Stygia book (the campaign will be somewhat based around a Stygian sorcerer NPC). From what I have read the Road of Kings is a very solid book, as is the Ruins of Hyboria, and a bunch of people seem pretty impressed with the Temptress class from one of the character books. Should those books pretty much round me out? Yes, I am addicted to buying RPG suppliments.

As far as house rules, one of the things I noticed in one of the older posts was some house rules regarding sorcery. The Rule of Fear was a pretty solid addition to the Scholar class I thought, as fear of the supernatural is a huge part of Howard's stories. Especially because being shaken reduces saving throws, this seems a solid addition as the magic attack bonus seems to scale relatively poorly compared to the potential will save modifiers of targets.

I personally have no problem with the Defensive Blast class feature however, as I simply rule that it may only be used in defense, never as an attack, and does not get any benefit from Opportunistic Sacrifice. It is clearly designed to be a last ditch close range kill magic. In addition, I believe each Defensive Blast should be unique to the sorcerer rather than a big ball of flame (which is how it does sound from the 1d6 fire damage description). For example, a Stygian priest might throw down a cloud of venom moments before being decapitated by a greatsword wielding barbarian eating away his flesh hideously and saving the priest, but expending all of his energies. Based off of the Howard stories, Sorcerers should be SCARY, not just from a -2 modifier, but because they legitimately could kill you, steal your soul, or control your mind. If anything, magic seems weak to me in the Conan rpg.

One of the other "hot" issues I read about in some past discussions is the 2 handed weapon scaling too dangerously compared to other weapons, but in general I think the scaling seems pretty accurate and fair. The only house rule I am adding is a +2 to sunder attempts with a greatsword. Historically the primary reason armies would field greatsword soldiers was to be near the front line and cut the heads off pikes and polearms. They were designed for sundering other weapons. As the bardiche already offers similar damage to the greatsword, for no feats, and a fraction of the cost, with a higher AP rating it seems fair the greatsword would be more capable at fullfilling its function.

Some things I love about the game so far; The Noble class is awesome. I know some people seem to think it is weak or somesuch... but I love the class. To me, it is a DnD Bard character that doesn't suck. I'm almost a little scared to see what one of my enterprising characters might do with a charisma based social character such as the Noble. The campaign is probably going to be a mix of combat and intrique (like most of my games) with an equal mix in characters. The armor piercing, and finesse rules are awesome, I think they really lend to the realism and I love how lethal combat is. I'll probably post more for ideas once I start my campaign, and thanks for reading!

Aaron

 

[blackenedwings]

Oh one other thing I was confused on. The demon that a pact scholar makes his pact with, what HD/level is it? For example, several of the demon entries mention that they advance as the character class, and they know a certain number of spell types, but some of them can know additional spells from their own collection.

Assuming a 1st-2nd Level scholar is in dire need, (or just very foolish) and he calls on his demon master to aid him in exchange for souls or some other suitable reward, what would be the limits of said demon? Considering the near certainty of corruption and insanity, I would assume the demon would be reasonably powerful. It wouldn't really make sense for a Scholar high enough level to begin learning Greater Demonic Pact to be in service to a demon far weaker than himself.

 

[Ankhe]

At 1st - 2nd lvl I would use the base demon stats from the AE book and level it from there, maybe 1 for 1 but probably 1 for 2, I would like to think that it would be more powerful than the scholar character anyway.

I'm basing the end of my campaign on a demon lord sick of his people being used and is out for a bit of payback, though it sounds pretty bad me and a friend basically built up the story while playing Diablo 2.

But as for additional books, if you need wilderness Thunder River and Hyboria's Fiercest are great.

 

[Majestic7]

blackenedwings,

Buy Road of the Kings, it is perhaps the best of the source books IMHO. Hmm, all the praise to the Ruins here have actually made me wonder if I should buy it.

What comes to customizing the rules, it all depends on what kind of campaign you want to run. If you don't have trouble with sorcerers overpowering everyone, then opportunistic sacrifice and the boom effect from defensive blast is not a problem. Especially if your sorcerers can't wear armor. Mine can, so I've limited defensive blast to balance it out.

I personally like two-handed weapons, sneak attack and massive damage rules as they are. I've actually increased the damage of some weapons, mainly crossbows. But then, I like lethal combat - and the players have fate points to balance the situation somewhat. On the average, one player character has fallen unconscious or been struck to the death's door so far per combat.

 

[Axerules]

What comes to customizing the rules, it all depends on what kind of campaign you want to run. If you don't have trouble with sorcerers overpowering everyone, then opportunistic sacrifice and the boom effect from defensive blast is not a problem. Especially if your sorcerers can't wear armor. Mine can, so I've limited defensive blast to balance it out.

I personally like two-handed weapons, sneak attack and massive damage rules as they are. I've actually increased the damage of some weapons, mainly crossbows. But then, I like lethal combat - and the players have fate points to balance the situation somewhat. On the average, one player character has fallen unconscious or been struck to the death's door so far per combat.

I also use a lot of homerules. About the crossbows and the bows they suck against even medium armoured foes. So instead of increasing their damage for most ranged weapons I added 2 (for bows) and 3 (for crossbows) to AP. To prevent sorcerers from using DB over and over I consider each use as a Mighty Spell. Scholars are really weak in fights so for game balance they need a powerful asset like DB (perhaps in 2ED the "fear of magic" will be more faithful to the world).

 

[Majestic7]

I also use a lot of homerules. About the crossbows and the bows they suck against even medium armoured foes. So instead of increasing their damage for most ranged weapons I added 2 (for bows) and 3 (for crossbows) to AP. To prevent sorcerers from using DB over and over I consider each use as a Mighty Spell. Scholars are really weak in fights so for game balance they need a powerful asset like DB (perhaps in 2ED the "fear of magic" will be more faithful to the world).

I increased AP of crossbows and arbalests as well. I think the normal bows are fine though, historically speaking - their advantage should be range and rate of fire, not armor piercing capability. However, I'm sure your homebrews work fine for you. I just don't want the normal bows to become too formidable, while fearing crossbows seems reasonable.

 

[blackenedwings]

Thanks for the fast responses all!

As far as the demonic pact portion goes, I think the feel is very similar to the Elrich series for those who have read Michael Moorecock's books, which has a main character who basically ends up serving a demonic entity in exchange for power/protection and to serve his own ends. He does everything in his power to avoid calling on his patron demon, but if it's a choice of life or death, he calls him out and pays the price with his soul. If it is kept with this in mind, I have no problem making the pact demon much more powerful than the player character. It makes using the pact to call forth the patron much more powerful, but also much more terrifying and dangerous. I definitely like the idea of having a power that is totally beyond the ability to control, and as the character levels up and comes into his own more, finding a patron that is even greater.

My only real complaint with the Conan rules so far is that while the magic rules seems to have the "feel" down very well for the Conan stories, the power level seems off. I mean, why would you sell your soul, and spend your life pouring through dark tomes to gain unholy powers when they are so weak in comparison to a man with a sword? Sorcerer's should be dangerous, feared, and corrupt... the rules only seem to account for the last part. I'm not arguing that the Conan RPG needs fireballs and flying wizards casting Time stop by any means. I just think that for example, the magic attack roll scales relatively poorly for the investment required. Curses, demons, and magic should be feared for the effect as much as the flavor.

I do agree that the bows/crossbows probably need to have an increase in AP rating, as historically what brought about the end of armor was the ability of such ranged weapons to penetrate even thick and expensive armor such as a knight's platemail. On the other hand, I think the increase has to be relatively minor, otherwise the naked dodging character becomes vastly better than an armor wearing character, with none of the disadvantages such as speed reduction or cost. In the Conan stories, it's clear that armor offers a tremendous amount of protection. How many times does Conan's helm turn away some tremendous blow, giving him time to "flex his iron hard thews" and kill the foe?

 

[Netherek]

Some points I'd like to make is that though you may rule that DB can only be done in defense, how do you interprit defense? When attacked? That still doesn't truly stop the Fire Blossom effect. It delays it to a point later in the round.

Here's what I mean. Scholar decides that do to some "hypothetical" limitation on his defensive magic goes and dons armor and a sword. He then before an up coming battle makes a sacrifice to up his PP. In the battle charges his foe and makes his attack, once the fool attacks back, BOOM, as it's in defense of being attacked. With a variety of feats this can go on and on. It's quite broken.

Necromancy has some down right nasty spells that can make DB pale in comparison. Curse gets a boost in some supplements, though I think using some spells from OGL Ancients and CoC or book of Vile Darkness/Heroes of Horror have some workable spells for adaptation.

 

[are]

As always, my opinion:

As an example, the Bossonian Bow scales very well with strength. You may buy them with increased strength and thus get strength bonus to damage and armour piercing. I think the bows are powerful enough as they are. The crossbows, on the other hand, should have 7 or more in AP as they should punch right through the armor of a man in mail and helmet at close range.

 

[slaughterj]

One of the other "hot" issues I read about in some past discussions is the 2 handed weapon scaling too dangerously compared to other weapons, but in general I think the scaling seems pretty accurate and fair. The only house rule I am adding is a +2 to sunder attempts with a greatsword.

As a note of caution, I wouldn't bother with such a small and unnecessary house rule as this, because it is of really infrequent use (thus easy to forget), isn't necessary to fix some major problem, and therefore just becomes an extra burden to remember.

From my experience in running Conan, PCs already have enough trouble remembering the regular rules, and the little things like dependent modifiers such as terrain, the +1 to attack for sneak attacks with sneak attack style weapons, etc. etc.

 

[Axerules]

I increased AP of crossbows and arbalests as well. I think the normal bows are fine though, historically speaking - their advantage should be range and rate of fire, not armor piercing capability. However, I'm sure your homebrews work fine for you. I just don't want the normal bows to become too formidable, while fearing crossbows seems reasonable.

"historically speaking" you and Blackenedwings are wrong. I can tell you that the first battle in medieval age where an infantry (on the English side) won against noble cavalry was at Crecy, the 26 august 1346. That day, the English bow showed his superiority to the Genovese arbalest (it was used on the French side, and the rain made it useless) . It was a huge shock for all European Knights to realize the strength of the bow and how easily it could penetrate heavy armor. It seems to me that the English Bow was used by REH to describe the Bossonian Longbow. And not "historically", but in Howard's writings you should both look at the Scarlet Citadel story. The rules as they're written decrease AP beyond first range increment, and the average Bossonian Soldier with 13 or so in strength (not your 16 or 18 strength-PC within first range increment) would have been ridiculous against the knights fielded on the opposite side and unable to throw the "rain of death" REH describded. Arbanus, with his armor, can laugh in front of average Bossonian archers "at a hundred paces" in the rules. In the Scarlet Citadel, he died with an arrow in his throat. But if you still think bows should not be efficient against armoured foes in your game, play it like they're written.

 

[Krushnak]

i make my archers efficient by giving them the strength score they should have, around 16. the draw weight on a long bow is easily over 200lbs so it is reasonable to give the archers a strength score representing that.

one of the things the knights also found out during the hundred year wars was just how strong the archers were.

 

[are]

Heavy armor was discarded after Crecy.

Do you honestly believe this?

 

[blackenedwings]

I increased AP of crossbows and arbalests as well. I think the normal bows are fine though, historically speaking - their advantage should be range and rate of fire, not armor piercing capability. However, I'm sure your homebrews work fine for you. I just don't want the normal bows to become too formidable, while fearing crossbows seems reasonable.

"historically speaking" you and Blackenedwings are wrong. I can tell you that the first battle in medieval age where an infantry (on the English side) won against noble cavalry was at Crecy, the 26 august 1346. That day, the English bow showed his superiority to the Genovese arbalest (it was used on the French side, and the rain made it useless). Heavy armor was discarded after Crecy. It was a huge shock for all European Knights to realize the strength of the bow and how easily it could penetrate heavy armor. It seems to me that the English Bow was used by REH to describe the Bossonian Longbow. And not "historically", but in Howard's writings you should both look at the Scarlet Citadel story. The rules as they're written decrease AP beyond first range increment, and the average Bossonian Soldier with 13 or so in strength (not your 16 or 18 strength-PC within first range increment) would have been ridiculous against the knights fielded on the opposite side and unable to throw the "rain of death" REH describded. Arbanus, with his armor, can laugh in front of average Bossonian archers "at a hundred paces" in the rules. In the Scarlet Citadel, he died with an arrow in his throat. But if you still think bows should not be efficient against armoured foes in your game, play it like they're written.

What? I was the one that pointed out that bows are brutally effective against armor historically.

I do agree that the bows/crossbows probably need to have an increase in AP rating, as historically what brought about the end of armor was the ability of such ranged weapons to penetrate even thick and expensive armor such as a knight's platemail.

Isn't that what you wrote with further detail on the historical references I mentioned?

 

[Netherek]

You info is a little inaccurate. The heavy armor that was dropped was Mail, Plate originates in the 14th century with it's peak use in the 15th. Plate lost ground to the increase in the use of firearms, not the bow.

Still, I could see all bows either getting a die step increase or an AP increase of 1 and Crossbows getting an increase to AP of 2-3 points.

 

[are]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_armor

 

[Axerules]

Heavy armor was discarded after Crecy.

Do you honestly believe this?

Oops! I should have written Heavy MAIL armour, I will edit it. Are, it was no use to give a link to wikipedia. Full PLATE armour was designed later (at the end of the 14th century) and was used in 15th to 17th century. Not in 14th. It was designed because the former mail "heavy armour" ( mail with some stronger pieces of armor ) was not enough efficient anymore: Nobles started to use full plate armour about half a century after Crecy. Netherek did correct it well. That's what happens when you write late in the night. No need to be sarcastic. And about Blackenedwings: the part of your post that was inaccurate was, as Netherek said it, that plate was discarded because of bows. And I should also have been more precise about the Scarlet Citadel story: REH talked about "mailed knights". My apologies if I wasn't clear.

 

[Damien]

Just to clear up a few things (not to sound snarky, mind you):

Plate armour was developed at the end of the 13th century (limb defenses and coats-of-plates over mail). It would become what we consider 'medieval plate armour' by the middle of the 14th century, and remain in use until the 16th century, after which parts of the armour were removed, with largely breastplates taking precedence in the mid-16th century through the 19th century.

Further, no ranged weapons prior to advanced firearms (circa 18th century) could reliably penetrate plate armour. Crecy and Agincourt did -not-, contrary to popular opinion, prove the bow superior to plate armour. What bows, in those two battles (and a few more besides) did prove superior to was poorly-armoured horses. At Agincourt, for instance, the French literally had their horses cut out from under them by arrowfire, and were subsequently trampled to death by other horses, or suffocated in the thick mud. Arrows of all types are quite ineffectual against plate armour. But a man on a horse has other weaknesses. Falling off a horse hurts (as does being dragged to the ground by a dying one). And if you're in the middle of a charging formation, it kills.

That said, firearms didn't quite kill plate armour, either. By the time firearms could -reliably- punch through armour, it had been largely abandoned except in special units. What killed plate armour was the fact that polearms (such as the pollax) were more and more capable of killing a man wearing it, as well as economic and social factors like the decline of chivalry, and the expense of even one fully-armoured cavalryman compared to the expense of an entire group of crossbowmen or conscripts with polearms and pikes. Plate armour just become, more than anything, economically ineffective. Large armies and modern warfare killed plate armour.

Also, mail armour was not abandoned after Crecy. It survived almost as long as plate did. Remember that mail was a 'lesser' technology in the time of plate. Meaning, it was less expensive. Therefore, soldiers that could not afford plate armour (which would have been a fair amount of them) would find it an attractive form of protection. Of course, it was still largely out of the price range of many. There were few that could afford a mail hauberk, even in the late medieval period, that could -not- afford plate. But mail was the primary form of protection from the time of the Romans until the beginning of the 14th century for a very good reason - it worked.


Concerning greatswords: They didn't cut pikes. Modern testing bears out that a greatsword is simply not capable of hacking a thick wooden pole apart. Especially not when it's held in a human hand (i.e. will sway when struck). Further evidence that they were not used for this in the fact that pikes did not have langets. With shorter polearms, you often find langets because it was possible to hack at the end of the weapon in an attempt to cut it away (this would take more than a single cut, of course, and would be a more common thing to do with an axe than with a sword). Langets are metal 'arms' running down the upper length of the pole-weapon, making it near impossible to cut into the wood.

Many people are confused by the term of 'breaking the pike.' Historically, this refers to using the long blade of your greatsword to 'shove' the pike aside. As you do, you rush into the formation and wreak havoc on its front and second lines.

Sword-and-buckler soldiers (primarily from Italy) also used a version of this. They would roll under the pikes and come up inside the formation, hacking and killing with their short swords against the utterly helpless pikemen (being that their weapons were too long to offer any real defense against close-range attack).


For what the greatsword -is- good for. . . well, I always allow players to take a feat, if they choose, to finesse the greatsword. If one studies the historical fighting manuals, and the types of two-hand swords recovered and kept in museums, they were quite clearly often designed for quick, deadly thrusts and short cuts in a half-sword stance. It certainly opposes the 'wide, sweeping uber-cuts' belief, but greatswords were not armour-penetrating weapons because they could cut through plate, but rather because they were designed with both exceptional reach, and the ability to be accurately thrust into gaps and joints. Quite agile, deadly weapons.


Of course, any discussion of history is largely academic concerning Hyboria. Howard was not a scholar of medieval warfare. And even if he had been - he, unfortunately, lived in a time when study of medieval warfare was dominated by snotty Victorian beliefs which made a slew of faulty claims. Even a cursory reading of Howard's works bears out this influence. His swords are described as heavy and large, and the most acute, 'schooled' style of swordsmanship comes from flimsy Zingaran quasi-rapier fencing. Armour is generally shown as cumbersome (which it really wasn't as much as is claimed), and a lot of combat is 'hack and smash.' If one were to read how the Victorian thinkers viewed medieval combat, and then read one of Howard's stories -- the resemblance will be found to be uncanny.

So -- do what's best for the game. If your players want to push Howard aside a little to inject more a more correct approach, that's cool (that's what my players want - although we have yet to remove the 'broadsword'). If your players don't care, keep it Howardian as much as possible and forget the fact that Hyboria is largely written under faulty beliefs about medieval warfare (like the 'cavalry were everything, infantry was a pile of crap in a streetcorner belief).

S'all good.



Another house rule I'd suggest (if you're shooting for a bit of realism) is to grant DR +1 for wearing greaves or other leg armour. Leg armour is completely overlooked in Conan. There's a good reason that virtually every European, Middle Eastern, and Far Eastern culture made use of leg armour in some form or another throughout all of history. You need it. Horsemen, especially, need protection for their legs. Legs are also a good target for infantry against infantry, and some swords are known to have had names like 'Foot-Biter.'

DR +1 isn't gamebreaking, so it works well. You can even go to +2 for the best stuff (steel greaves with cuisses, poleyns and sabatons, for instance) if you like even more invulnerable knights, or if your players don't have a tendency to even bother with the heaviest armours. In my opinion, overlooking leg armour as 'inconsequential' would be no different from overlooking shields, or helmets (the latter is completely ignored in D&D, so I was very pleased to see them given proper credit in Conan).

In my games, it goes like this:

Bronze/Steel Greaves or Mail Chausses: +1 DR
Greaves w/ cuisses, poleyns and/or sabatons: +2 DR

In the Scarlet Citadel, he died with an arrow in his throat. But if you still think bows should not be efficient against armoured foes in your game, play it like they're written.

Critical Hit, with the cinematic description of "your arrow slams into his throat with such force that it splits the iron gorget and buries itself deep, bringing forth a shower of crimson and a shrieking gurgle."

 

[are]

Are, it was no use to give a link to wikipedia. Full PLATE armour was designed later ..

The link is quite good actually. It is about PLATE armour in general, not FULL PLATE armour specifically.

 

[are]

Plate armour was developed at the end of the 13th century (limb defenses and coats-of-plates over mail).

Yes, the greeks wore their plate without mail, and the romans used either plate or mail. The greeks and romans made their plates of bronze, this because with the current metallurgical skills bronze made better plates than steel. (Or iron, if you prefer to call the steel of the ancients for iron, as some do. I obviously don't.)

Further, no ranged weapons prior to advanced firearms (circa 18th century) could reliably penetrate plate armour.

This is again due to the skills of the metallurgists. One had to have strong enough barrels to get high enough velocity to punch through plate armour of a weight a man could wear. If you look at cannon, they were using bronze for a long time because the forces generated in a cannon sooner or later blew a cannon made of iron apart.

However, if you look at the link about plate armour I provided, you will see that it was in use in both world wars, as it was still able to stop fire from sidearms and smgs. Body armour will probably get a revival, actually it already is.

But mail was the primary form of protection from the time of the Romans until the beginning of the 14th century for a very good reason - it worked.

Yes. Mail might not protect perfectly, but instead of being killed or maimed you might get away with a bruise or momentarily incapacitation.

Concerning greatswords: They didn't cut pikes. Modern testing bears out that a greatsword is simply not capable of hacking a thick wooden pole apart.

Strange. Have you tried? With a sharp greatsword cutting a 2" pine pole isn't a big deal, however, I must admit I haven't tried poles made of any other material.

Langets are metal 'arms' running down the upper length of the pole-weapon, making it near impossible to cut into the wood.

How much would the weight of a pike increase if it were protected by langets? Obviously much more than the weight of a shorter pole arm. And, if the shorter pole arms were protected by langets because they could be hacked apart as you seem to imply, why would the swaying of the longer pole arms protect them better than the higher agility with which a man could purposefully move his shorter polearm?

For what the greatsword -is- good for. . . well, I always allow players to take a feat, if they choose, to finesse the greatsword. If one studies the historical fighting manuals, and the types of two-hand swords recovered and kept in museums, they were quite clearly often designed for quick, deadly thrusts and short cuts in a half-sword stance. It certainly opposes the 'wide, sweeping uber-cuts' belief, but greatswords were not armour-penetrating weapons because they could cut through plate, but rather because they were designed with both exceptional reach, and the ability to be accurately thrust into gaps and joints. Quite agile, deadly weapons.

Good idea. But I doubt if they should do 2d10 damage used in such a manner. What about 1d12 - like the war sword? Actually, in Conan, the war sword can be used 2h as a finesse weapon, and this without a feat.