Things I Miss about AD&D 2E (and some AD&D 1E)

[Supplement Four]

I love the Conan RPG in all its glory, and as far as d20 games go (I have some of the same reservations about d20 as some others have), the Conan RPG is the best edition and rules version of the d20 game.

But, there were a few things from the last edition of D&D that I miss and think are missing from the game. I think the game would have been better off had these rules been kept.

For example:





Weapon Speed: AD&D 2E assigned each weapon a Weapon Speed Factor. This is a modifier to initiative, skewing longer, heavier weapons to go later in the round. Quick, light weapons typically went early in the round.

Why get rid of that? It makes a lot of sense. If you're using a dagger, and your opponent is using a longsword, it makes sense that you'll be quicker with the jab. Or, if you're using a longsword, but your opponent is swinging a hefty two-handed sword, it makes sense that you should, on average, strike before he can maneuver that big heavy thing around to hit you.

AD&D 1E had a great little rule that allowed longer, bigger weapons to strike first, automatically, on the first round of combat, but then use the Speed Factor as it is used in AD&D 2E for 2nd and later rounds of combat. This gave characters using very long weapons the chance to hit first (which makes sense), but then skewed their attacks to later in the round after the first round of combat (also makes sense).

In AD&D 1E, whenever the initiative rolls tied, weapon Speed Factors were compared. If a SF was half (or lower), that weapon was allowed another, free, attack for the round. If the SF was three times smaller than the SF for the opponent's weapon, then two free attacks were allowed.

So, in a AD&D 1E fight, a character using a longsword (SF 5), fighting a character using a dagger (SF 1), the fight would go something like this:



1. The longsword user would automatically strike first in the round. This gives the advantage of first blow to the weapon with the longest reach.

2. As the melee continued, longer weapons are at a disadvantage because the weapon's larger SF was added to modify the character's initiative throw, skewing the longer, heavier weapons to go later in the round. So, big, heavy weapons would do more damage, with the trade-off being that they'd probably strike later in the round.

3. To simulate opportunities where a character with a smaller weapon could "get inside his opponent" (get so close to make it difficult to wield a larger weapon), a comparison of SFs was made whenver the initiative throw tied (Initiative in AD&D 1E is thrown using a 1d6, so it happens more frequently than in the Conan RPG where nish is thrown using a 1d20). If the smaller weapon's SF is half the larger weapon's SF, then the character using the smaller weapon got an extra attack. If the smaller weapon was three times smaller than the larger weapon, the character with the smaller weapon was allowed two extra, free attacks.



Those are some interesting rules that spiced up combat. I miss them. They made weapon selection more than just an exercise in picking the weapon that does the most damage.

I think the Conan RPG would benefit from some type of similar mechanics.





Armor Adjustments: I've heard that many players never liked the Armor Adjustments when considering weapons. I've heard that the rule was "fussy" and "hard to implement". I think that came about because of the way the rule was written in the AD&D 2E rule book. It said to put the weapon vs. armor type modifiers on that attack throw. That's the hard way of doing it. What we always did, in my AD&D 2E game, was list three armor modifiers on the character's sheet. So, you wouldn't only have a normal AC, an AC without shield, and an AC from the rear, but you'd add an AC vs. Blunt, AC vs. Pierce, and an AC vs. Slash.

That way, it was very easy to use the modifier. The attacker never bothered with it. The defender can see that his attacker is using a longsword, so when asked for his AC, he'd give the AC vs Slashing weapons. Simple as that.

This is a great rule to use when playing AD&D 2E because it makes certain armors more or less effective against certain types of weapons. For example, if your character is going into territory with goblins known for using bows, then, given a choice, you may pick the armor that offers the best protection against piercing weapons.

I suppose the Conan RPG does have this type of thing covered a bit with its weapon piercing factors vs Armor values, but I haven't studied it to see if the outcome works as good as the system in AD&D 2E.





Rate of Fire: Another thing sorely missed from the AD&D 2E game is rate of fire. In the Conan RPG, why would anyone ever use a dart? In the AD&D 2E game, a character is allowed to throw 3 darts, doing only 1-3 damage each, but STR modifier can be added. So, a character with STR 17 could do 6-12 points of damage, if he hit all three times. That's better than two-handed sword damage!

Miss it.

 

[Jacek]

Boy, you're so right. Strange that Mongoose overlooked that aspect in Conan combat mechanics.

I've little experience with AD&D, but I remember that GURPS as well addresses the two former issues you've just brought up. However they seem somewhat "crude" in comparison.

The solutions you presented here seem pretty nice and having them in games could really add to combat's flavor.

 

[LucaCherstich]

Different speed levels for different weapons?
I have always loved that rule in those glorious AD&D2 days of my youth.
I would like to see some of it in d20....but I feel that including also that rules will steal one ENORMOUS advantage that d20 has over other rpgs: combat are pretty quick (or at least they are quick for somebody like me who is familiar with the rules).
In D&D 3e/d20 I like the way you roll initiative just only on the first round, then simply you follow the sequence. It saves you time for furtehr rolls in further rounds.
It was not so in the old AD&D2 days, and then my combats were slower.
In those days you had to add the weapon (or spell) speed on your initiative...and that could change every round.
Furthermore you had to declare what you do AT TEH BEGINNING of the round, since teh speed of that action (weapon or spell) had to be addede to your initiative at the beginning.
Off course things happen during combat, and soemtimes you had to change your declared course of actions.
I hated that.
I prefer the actual D20 system.
Much quicker and much more dynamic: less rolls and you decide what you do when is your turn.
D20 combat has less rolls to do than AD&D2 combat (not considering wonderful or odd feats...).
Conan add another level of complexity to D&D: AP vs armour.
A good rule, but it slows a bit the mechanism.
I like calculating AP vs DR, but that's a step which in Conan makes combat slower than in normal D&D3.5....until you get used to it, however adding a further roll making combat even slower would be too much for me...

 

[treeplanter]

I liked weapon speed too. However if you want to introduce the rule in Conan, you can do as simple as Light weapon are +2 modifiier to initiative, medium 0 and two-handed -2, something like that

 

[Supplement Four]

However if you want to introduce the rule in Conan, you can do as simple as Light weapon are +2 modifiier to initiative, medium 0 and two-handed -2, something like that

True. But, one of the strengths, I think, of the Conan RPG is that there is no "think first then roll" initiative. You roll nish, then decide what you want to do. Thinking first, as in, "I'm going to attack with my sword," requires mods to the nish throw, as you suggest above.

I think a better solution would be to leave Conan nish the way it is, then figure another way to implement this into the game.

What about using the mods on the attack throw? Give longer weapons a bonus to hit on the first attack throw (+2, I'm thinking) or round, then it becomes a penalty for the rest of the fight as the fighters with the shorter weapons attempt to "get inside" their opponents, making the long spear and hafty two-handed swords harder to bring about.

This could be situational, too. If both combatants have same-sized weapons, no additional attack mod. If its a contest between a large weapon and a medium weapon, the large weapon is +2 attack on the first round, then be at a disadvante for the rest of the fight, -2 to hit.

If it's a two handed sword vs. a dagger, where two size categories are crossed, give a +2/-2 modifier for each category. Thus, on the first round, the two-handed sword is +4 to hit against the dagger wielder. On subsequent rounds, he's -4 to hit.



As for the stuff in the OP about ROF and the special little thing that AD&D 1E does with tied nish, a crafty GM could write a good Feat for dagger users (small weapon users) that would make them more viable weapons in combat.

 

[Supplement Four]

A Better Thought...

Would be to follow the 1E AD&D model. Use no nish modifiers for weapon on the first attack, but longer weapons are allowed to attack first (even if the dude with the shorter weapon won nish).

For example, if you've got a dagger, and the bad guy has a broadsword, and on your nish, you run over to attack him, the bad guy with the broadsword will get first attack (as if he'd won initiative), then you get to attack with your dagger.

Dagger dude wins nish. He moves to attack Broadsword dude. Broadsword dude actually attacks first (if Broadsword dude is aware of the attack), then Dagger dude attacks.



After the first round, use the nish penalties suggested above, so that longer, heavier weapons are skewed to going later in the round (but could attack first on good nish throws).

I kinda like that. I may implement something like this in my game.



EDIT: The ROF and Multiple Attack stuff, if not inserted ito the game via Feats, how about making a Combat Maneuver out of them?

I'd like to see a Combat Maneuver that makes a Dagger or a Knife more deadly. Conan fought with those weapons all the time. Remember his Ilbarsi knife he carried for a while? Sometimes, it was just that knife, Conan, and his loincloth, fighting off the mighty Cimmerian's enemies.

 

[LucaCherstich]

The good thing about Light Weapons is that all of them in the Core Rules are Finesse weapons.

Other advantages are less rule-dependant but are more linked with background and the kind of adventure one wants to play: they are small, more easily hidden, they are cheaper.

Furthermore it is up to the GM to decide whether or not at the beginning of an adventure the players are equipped all with light weapons or not.

Remember his Ilbarsi knife he carried for a while? Sometimes, it was just that knife, Conan, and his loincloth, fighting off the mighty Cimmerian's enemies.

BEWARE TO THE "KNIFE" NAME!

"knife" is a generic name....the Ilbarsi knife is described to be "3-feet long"....in other words it is a real sword, and not a light weapon!

Please check also the Zhaibar Knife: one handed-martial weapon, 1d12 damage!...the description in teh core rules say: "..The Zhaibar knife is as long as most swords, though it is shaped very much like a large knife and has a thicker blade than any sword. It is used throughout Ghulistan. Its blade is three feet long, triangular and intended for slashing rather than thrusting. Most Zhaibar knives are bone-handled..."

 

[Spectator]

DAMN good point/post S4!!!
I am playing on a modified AD&D 1ed platform.
The simplicity rocks and combat is fast and deadly!
GM-ing is much more fun when you are not worried about 5' steps, AoO, and the other minutiae.
GM-ing is just that, you got to rely on your sense of fairness, rules (arbitrary sometimes), and storyline advancement (without becoming a rail-roader).

IT's all good fun.

I always thought the armor type attack tables were fantastic. A Warhammer would have an advantage on armor, while a shortsword would slice through flesh like butter. Good stuff!

 

[Supplement Four]

I always thought the armor type attack tables were fantastic. A Warhammer would have an advantage on armor, while a shortsword would slice through flesh like butter.

The AD&D 2E take on this adds spice to the game in the form of combat and weapon/armor selection.

This is a section of a post I wrote on this from another forum.

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Weapons are labelled by Type: Piercing, Slashing, or Blunt (easy enough to figure out). Then, you apply a modifier to the attacker's to-hit roll (that's by the book--see my next sentence). I find it much, much easier to modify AC by the appropriate number (not unlike a character sheet showing AC to the rear, AC without shield, AC with shield...add in AC versus P, AC versus S, and AC versus B).

The players tend to never forget these AC modifiers because, more often than not, the adjustment favours the player. For example, Banded Mail is −2 AC versus Slash, +0 AC versus Pierce, and −1 AC versus Blunt.

That's pretty simple. Just look at your sheet and rattle off your AC. "What's the goblin using? A club? I'm AC 3 against him."

What's nice about the 2E Weapon Type vs. Armor Modifiers is that it allows you to pick the right armor for the job. For example, Banded Mail, Splint Mail, and Bronze Plate are all AC 4, right? Looking at the below, not all AC 4 armors are the same. Banded is probably the best all around choice of the three, but if your frontier troops are often engaged mountain goblins that typically use bow and clubs, then Splint is the definite way to go.

Banded Mail is base AC 4; AC 2 vs Slash; AC 4 vs Pierce; AC 3 vs Blunt

Splint Mail is base AC 4; AC 4 vs Slash; AC 3 vs Pierce; AC 2 vs Blunt

Bronze Plate is base AC 4; AC 2 vs Slash; AC 4 vs Pierce; AC 6 vs Blunt

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Another thing I like about AD&D's 2E version of this is that it gives some ummph to blunt weapons. Before, in AD&D, a character carried a blunt weapon only because his class wouldn't let him carry an edged weapon (Cleric) or for a special purpose (skeletons). Blunts always seem to do less damage in AD&D.

Using the Armor Mods, Blunts all of a sudden become a viable choice. They do less damage, but they hit more often. Typically, Blunt damage is the best weapon to use against most types of armor. So, blunts may do less damage, but they are hitting and damaging more often. With that, some fighters may want to use a flail or a mace instead of a longsword.

 

[Clovenhoof]

I don't know about Armour Adjustments -- keep in mind that D20 does not have Facing. A combat round is 6 seconds long, which is more than enough time to turn and face your opponents from whichever side they may come. For multiple opponents you get gangup and flankin bonuses and that's all you need.

And as for Weapon Speed, never was a rule more rightfully culled from the genepool of D&D gaming than weapon speed. I could recite a lengthy essay about why it doesn't make sense, but here's in a nutshell:

First off, Ini bonuses or penalties don't make any weapon go faster. You get the exact same number of attacks per round with a dagger and a halberd.

More importantly, weapon speed and reach cancel out, and that's already an assumption favouring the smaller weapon.
Keep in mind that in D20, everything from dagger to Greatsword is treated as "five foot reach". In reality, longer weapons have a _huge_ advantage, even 4" more mean a world of difference in RL combat.
In fact, you don't just need to swing that 0,5-lb dagger, which might in fact be a tad faster than I can swing my 2-lbs broadsword. To even threaten me you have to move your entire ~160-lbs body 3 ft closer and then back again. If anything, then that's a lot SLOWER than just extending a 40"-broadsword. (That's sort of like your second idea to give the longer weapon first strike, but that again would put smaller weapons at an even greater disadvantage)

So for weapon speeds to make any sense at all, you need to resolve weapon reach in a much higher detail. And that would again shaft small weapons because it would be a lot more difficult to even get in attack range.

S4, I think I've told you this before: your gaming preferences simply aren't catered for by the D20 mechanics. You have shown in the past, and now again, that you want a much higher resolution, "realistic" simulation rather than an abstract tabletop game. So for pete's sake, just switch the effing system.
I've made this recommendation before: try The Dark Eye, 4th edition. It has everything you want, including facing, 4 weapon reach categories (from dagger to pike), weapon speed as Ini bonus, wounding rules (making daggers potentially as deadly as a big axe), and so forth.

Personally I hate TDE because of all that, but it looks like it would make you happy. You can find it on Amazon.

 

[Supplement Four]

And as for Weapon Speed, never was a rule more rightfully culled from the genepool of D&D gaming than weapon speed.

Completely disagree with you, of course!

First off, Ini bonuses or penalties don't make any weapon go faster. You get the exact same number of attacks per round with a dagger and a halberd.

Yes, but it's about who goes first. A dagger is a quick, easily maneuverable weapon. A halberd takes some time to haul around and swing at someone.

That's what weapon speed is all about. It doesn't remove attacks. It just makes big, heavy weapons attack later in the round than smaller, lighter, easily maneuverable weapons.

That should make a lot of sense to you.

So for weapon speeds to make any sense at all, you need to resolve weapon reach in a much higher detail.

Not really. Weapons Speed Factors work well. One could take the SFs from 2E and use them in Conan if one wanted.

S4, I think I've told you this before: your gaming preferences simply aren't catered for by the D20 mechanics.

It works fine for my tastes and play style. Especially Conan, with the shorter combat round. Heck, the round doesn't even have to be abstract with the round that short. I play Conan were one attack throw = one real attack, like a bow. No need to abstract the round as you do in AD&D 2E where the combat round is a minute.

In our game, we even describe exactly how the character is attacking, describing his movements. Simulationist and much fun.

Works fine.

Maybe not with your take on d20, but there's enough d20 interpretation to go around.

:shock:

 

[Supplement Four]

S4, I think I've told you this before: your gaming preferences simply aren't catered for by the D20 mechanics. You have shown in the past, and now again, that you want a much higher resolution, "realistic" simulation rather than an abstract tabletop game. So for pete's sake, just switch the effing system.

You act like discussing variants of the game irritates you. What is it about some people who just have to come off acting like jerks? You're sitting there, safe behind your avatar and your keyboard, and instead of writing a constructive disagreement to the point made in the thread, you decide that it will best serve you (probably your ego) to come off acting like a bad-ass.

Brother, this is a forum dedicated to discussing the Conan RPG. I don't think variant ideas are outside the scope of the forum. We're sitting here having a nice conversation about variant ideas, and you've got to enter acting like an ass.

At first, I decided to ignore your remark. But, upon a moment or two thought, no, I decided to call you on it.

Please. Speak peaceably or leave the conversation.

 

[Clovenhoof]

I didn't mean to come off insulting. So I guess I should have left out the sentence with effing in it. Sorry for that.
The point is, you are going to unnecessary pains adapting the system to do something it wasn't meant to do, because whatever you do it will still be patchwork with unpredictable ripple effects, while on the other hand there are already systems out there which do pretty much exactly what you are trying to achieve.

Of course, these systems have other drawbacks, like being awkwardly clunky and requiring a lot of bookeeping, but that's the price you pay for high resolution simulationism.

What's kind of funny, but may cause irritation over time, is how the grass always seems to be greener on the far side of the fence. There are TDE players that groan about weapon skills and active parry and facing and weapon speeds and whatnot, and start fiddling with the system until nothing works anymore. And on the other hand there's weapon speed threads popping up on D20 boards every three months or so. It's getting old, I guess that's what makes me kind of impatient with it. In your case specifically, I remember a lot of discussions started by you a while ago that were about mechanics that were deliberately left out of D20 but are in fact implemented in TDE, hence my suggestion to use that.

Well, so much for the meta.

That's what weapon speed is all about. It doesn't remove attacks. It just makes big, heavy weapons attack later in the round than smaller, lighter, easily maneuverable weapons.

And what's the point in the dagger-wielder doing his piddly 5 points of damage before the greatsword fighter inflicts his 25 damage on his surroundings?
Besides, with your suggested 1E-like First Strike for longer weapons, the dagger fighter wouldn't even have this advantage. He'd only get the "advantage" of receiving a 25-point-lesson on his own Ini count rather than having to wait for his opponent's. Again, the fact that dagger wielders in D20 do NOT draw AoOs when attacking opponents with bigger weapons already is an implementation of "weapon speed", if you want to put it like that.

And most importantly, what if the dagger wielder decides not to attack at all, but rather uses his superior initiative to run away?
Why does he get to run away sooner with a dagger in his hand than if he were unarmed or carrying a sword?

 

[kintire]

Yes, but it's about who goes first. A dagger is a quick, easily maneuverable weapon. A halberd takes some time to haul around and swing at someone.

That's what weapon speed is all about. It doesn't remove attacks. It just makes big, heavy weapons attack later in the round than smaller, lighter, easily maneuverable weapons.

That should make a lot of sense to you.

Except it doesn't. Long weapons (within reason) should always attack first, except in a grapple.

A dagger will be light enough that its speed is limited by how fast the wielder can move their arm. When thrusting it will have a reach of three feet or so, including arm. When swinging it will be moving a little faster as it is a 1 foot or so lever.

A sword will also be (almost exactly) light enough that its speed will be limited by how fast the wielder can move their arm. When thrusting it will be as fast as the dagger, but will have a reach of five or so feet, including arm. When swinging, it will be MUCH faster, as it is a three foot or so lever.

A two handed "war" sword will be faster yet: it will be light enough that when swung two handed its speed will be limited by how fast the wielder can move their arms, and it will be a 6-7 foot reach and a four-five foot lever.

Polearms like bills or halberds are reaching the point where they are getting a little heavy, so their thrusts might be a little slower, depending on the wielder's strength. At the swing speed will be more than made up for by the 7-9 foot lever.

Spears will probably be about as fast at the thrust as the dagger, but 6 feet plus long.

In actual fact "lightness" is mostly irrelevant, unless someone is wielding someone else's weapon which is too heavy for them. Reach is pretty much all: unless the shorter weapon wielder can close to grapple. If we are trying to be realistic about this, a dagger wielder should have to use some sort of feat or maneuver to be able to attack a 2hander or polearm wielder at all.

I have more time for the armour rules though

 

[Supplement Four]

I didn't mean to come off insulting. So I guess I should have left out the sentence with effing in it. Sorry for that.

Ah. OK, then. Cool. I wasn't the only one who felt that way (got a couple of PMs), but, hey, no harm, no foul.

Let's move on! :!:

The point is, you are going to unnecessary pains adapting the system to do something it wasn't meant to do, because whatever you do it will still be patchwork with unpredictable ripple effects, while on the other hand there are already systems out there which do pretty much exactly what you are trying to achieve.

Two points: I'm not sure it was not meant to do some of the things we're talking about here. D20 grew from AD&D and is very close to that system. The rules being discussed were from earlier editions. We're basically talking about adding modifiers to Initiative. I don't think that's going to have a major impact on the game.

But, having designed some things myself, I am fully aware of the Rule of Unintended Consequences, which is what you're talking about.

It is a rule that needs to be respected. A GM could change one little thing, and without knowing it, he's breaking a system somewhere that he'd rather not break.

Of course, these systems have other drawbacks, like being awkwardly clunky and requiring a lot of bookeeping, but that's the price you pay for high resolution simulationism.

True. And, I always try to keep "ease of mechanics" in mind.

What's kind of funny, but may cause irritation over time, is how the grass always seems to be greener on the far side of the fence.

I like discussing "what ifs". Just because I start a topic and participate in one doesn't mean I'm going to change my game. I talk about all sorts of things that never make it to my game--I respect my game too much for that.

A lot of these comments are just that: comments. Game discussion. They're not automatic, hard core house rules.

I may make a house rule later, but I've got to put more effort into thinking about them that this. One of the things I like about discussing these things, too, is to see all sides--or a side of the subject I may not have seen.

And what's the point in the dagger-wielder doing his piddly 5 points of damage before the greatsword fighter inflicts his 25 damage on his surroundings?

Well, I think a greatsword should be a scarier weapon. If I see two fighters, one with a dagger fighting another with a greatsword, I'd probably bet on the greatsword wielder.

To boost daggers up a bit, I've been talking about two things: First is the extra attacks given to the dagger user if he can "get inside" close to the greatsword user. Based on a random throw (some mechanic based on Int), the dagger user could have three attacks to the greatsword's one. Now, the dagger is doing 15 points to the greatsword's 25--still in the greatsword's favor, but giving the dagger user a chance.

Given the right circumstances and the right number of hit points on the bad guy, and maybe some luck (or some Fate) in the form of Critical Hits all of a sudden, the dagger becomes a viable weapon.

That's the point.

And most importantly, what if the dagger wielder decides not to attack at all, but rather uses his superior initiative to run away?
Why does he get to run away sooner with a dagger in his hand than if he were unarmed or carrying a sword?

On the first round, there would be no modifer, so if the dagger user won nish, he could run normally.

If already in melee, there is a modifier, and I can see that--the greatsword user has to swing and recover that great big weapon. I don't have a problem allowing the dagger user to bolt from the melee while the greatsword user is recovering from his swing.

Still, normal rule from running from melee aplly--isn't that a free AoO on the running dagger user?

 

[Nagisawa]

For the record, Weapon Speed was an OPTIONAL rule in 2e.

 

[rabindranath72]

Yeah, AD&D 1e was brutal when it came to combat (2e somewhat less so, most notably for missile weapons which get really nerfed)
(oh S4, 1e has ROF stats for weapons, too).

Some other things which could be useful in a Conan game:

1- Automatic mook rules: fighters make a number of attacks equal to their level vs. mooks of 1HD-1 or less. See Conan mow the city guards!
2- Add Dex modifier to initiative when using missile weapons. This makes missile weapons potentially lethal coupled with...
3- Full rate of fire during the initiative/surprise segments. You don't want to be surprised by a ranger armed with a bow!
4- Fighters with multiple attacks always strike first regardless of initiative. A 7th level Conan would always attack before any sorcerer, no matter what. THAT's an advantage and true to the genre!

 

[rabindranath72]

And most importantly, what if the dagger wielder decides not to attack at all, but rather uses his superior initiative to run away?
Why does he get to run away sooner with a dagger in his hand than if he were unarmed or carrying a sword?

? the rule applies to attacks only. If he declared he was to run away, no modifier would apply at all.

 

[LucaCherstich]

2- Add Dex modifier to initiative when using missile weapons. This makes missile weapons potentially lethal coupled with...

You already add dex and Ref sav to the Initiative...do you mean you want to add Dex bonus only in the case of ranged attack?
And if in the second round you switch to melee weapon what do you do?
Do you change Intitiative score every round?

I think this has the same bad effect of adding weapons speed: declaring what you do before the initiative (since choice of actions modifies initiative score), and maybe change your declared actions later with a penalty.

This is bad in Conan for 2 reasons:

1) You must recalculate the Initiative score every round if you change the kinds of actions...it certainly slows the combat pacing (and quick combat Pacing is one of the best advantages of d20, and one of the reasons why d20 is perfect for Conan).
Rhythm is everything in Howard's Combat descriptions.
You loose some rhythm if you calculate Initiative every bloody round for every bloody person involved in the combat.

2) It makes everything less dynamic.
With the actual rules you decide what to do when your turn comes.
That's very good and in feeling with Conan stories' Atmoshere in REH.

 

[rabindranath72]

2- Add Dex modifier to initiative when using missile weapons. This makes missile weapons potentially lethal coupled with...

You already add dex and Ref sav to the Initiative...do you mean you want to add Dex bonus only in the case of ranged attack?
And if in the second round you switch to melee weapon what do you do?
Do you change Intitiative score every round?

SNIP

I was just pointing out the 1e rules as possible suggestion, not as a direct rule for d20 Conan. How to implement the same concept in d20 Conan...well, that's another matter.