Wadayathink; No prisioners

Well, they'll probably try to kill each other.

:p :lol:

And I don't have my book in front of me to check on the wording. Are you suggesting if the first character killed a third character, the second could be immune to the other's No Prisoners ability? I think they'd end up trying to "one up" the other, by killing as many mooks as possible.
What I meant is: if both are terrifying warriors to behold in combat, so much that they shake the will of their opponents, would they be prone to be shaken by the same intimidating display of the other, if both are capable of achieving this?

They can shake their opponents to a maximum penalty of -5, and if eventually bot are shaken to the same extent, it seems to me that the feat could be canceld between them, unless they both engaged in combat themselves, where an actual successful hit by one, would begin demoralizing the other. The rest of their parties would be shaken as per the book rule.
Yes, of course. But what if one is 3rd level and the other 7th. The effect is different. The 3rd level guy is penalized much more. What if one warrior has more attacks? It affects him on more attacks, but because he has more he's more likely to roll high also. If the 3rd level guy has 4 buddies, the effect of the 7th level guy's No Prisoners feat is diminished incrementally once they all surround him.

I think you're over simplifying things and not looking at the big picture. There's lots of other factors that can "unequalize" this scenario.

On what?!?

No Prisoners, in a nutshell, gives a -1DV penalty and a -1ATT penalty to "all opponents". I know it says AC, but there's no AC in Conan, so that obviously means DV. It was probably copy/pasted from another source and noone caught the difference. Anyhow, it means the same thing. Each time you drop a fow in melee, this value gets worse, up to a maximum of -5, then it stops.

Level difference grants higher BAB and MAB so that this will offset the No Prisoners penalty. In other words, using my 3 vrs 7 story above, assuming both at Cimmerian Barbarians with 16(+3)STR, the 3rd level guy at maximum No Prisoners penalty against him from the 7th (-5) would have a +1 to hit left down from +6 (STR+BAB for 3rd). The 7th level guy, on the other hand, would have a +5/+0 because he has two attacks and should normally be at +10/+5 (STR+BAB for 7th).

Flanking s a +2, so if the third gets into a flanking position against the 7th, the 3rd's attack goes up to +3. If he and 4 others surround the 7th, the penalty can go away entirely, adding to any Flank bonus that might exist (and should with that many guys ganging up). See page 177, Flanking, and page 187, Multiple Opponents (original printing).

I grant you, a WILL save might have been a more mechanical way to develop results, but they decided on the bookkeeping route. Plus, this feat is a follow-up from the Great Cleave feat and it lasts for the entire combat, not a round or number of rounds. The reason I mention that is that even opponents that can't reach or even see you will suffer this penalty once they get in range and with Great Cleave several opponents can be dropped all at once in a single round (basically).

I might have written that each time you drop more than one opponent in melee, all fore within LOS to you or any of your formerly threatend squares must make a WILL save minus the number you killed, max -5, or suffer a -2 on all actions that round that aren't focused on either staying still or moving away. It could even be that each time multiple opponents are slain in this way, all opponents must make a WILL save minus the slayer's character level for the remainder of the combat or they stop in thier track and run on a Critical Failure. Those might even be new Feats that I can isntitute.

Thing is, there's lots of ways around the -5 max penalty and I can't really see where the confusion lies.
No confussion whatsoever, just wanted to hear the thoughts of others at the forum.

The rule books try to be very concise, often leaving things unclear. This feat being such a threat, has a very simplistic description. I probably had to have worded my question differently, so as not to confuse other people.

The will save will represent the feat better, but I think the rules descriving the higher level feroucious attack of pirates are a better start to redefine the feat, taking into account the possible combat circumstances.