Warrior's companion: Cultural weapon

[Sourcerer]

Quality Control

The editorial process and play testing seem to be lacking.

 

[VincentDarlage]

Quality Control

The editorial process and play testing seem to be lacking.

Well, personally I think editors should be checking grammar, and playtesters should be checking the rules, but I am not sure how Mongoose does it. I would presume that if playtesters found a problem, then the editor or the original author would be notified and changes made if the editor and/or author found the playtester's opinion to be credible.

The problem is that sometimes the problems aren't found until after publication because playtesters can't test everything - or they may make the same assumptions that the author made - such as the likelihood that a party is going to have but one Borderer. I have to admit I missed the Borderer alternative problem I mentioned above because I assumed it to be a circumstance bonus, even though that was never stated. My own assumption blinded me to the problem. No one is perfect!

Shoot, even as an author, some horrible mistakes get made. I cringe at a few of the things I thought was a good idea at the time (shoot, Explosive Power from Road of Kings and the Player's Guide is probably the most broken feat ever - and it is my fault it was put in the supplements; I'd never allow it in one of my games, yet I put it in the 2nd edition by mistake anyway. Ugh. I still kick myself over that). Some things just get overlooked.

So I wouldn't say those things are lacking - just that a few things were understandably missed. I have a lot of respect for the editors and playtesters of the line. Most of the little changes I suggested on the playtest of the warrior's guide were made, actually.

 

[Sourcerer]

Content and readability should be part of the editors responsability as well.

Of course any form and degree of quality control can't find all mistakes and a lot of the decisions are subjective, so individual opinions can differ greatly.

But in the case of the Warrior's Companion the the consensual opinion seems to be, that most is broken or useless. Especially when playtesters say to have warned beforehand, this sounds like quality control has failed.

Then there are a few other inconsistencies among the sourcebooks, that have been discussed in this forum (e.g. Corruption in Free Companies).

This all just made me wonder, by which means Mongoose tries to keep the rules coherent and to maintain a certain level of quaility in it's products.

If I had bought the Warrior's Companion, it would have lowered the likelihood of me buying further products of the Conan RPG.

 

[B_Steele]

But in the case of the Warrior's Companion the the consensual opinion seems to be, that most is broken or useless.

Honestly, except for the few dissenting voices on this thread, most of the reviews I have gotten from players that have used the book (via convention conversation and a handful of PMs here on the forum) enjoy it thoroughly.

Like Vincent said, some things get missed during the process; but I wager a lot more get overstated by initial reads and those who have yet to try the product in an actual game. Hell, my playtest group uses it just fine and we have yet to have a problem.

Again, like I said when it and Thieves' Companion were being written, they are not books for everyone. I'm not saying that some things cannot be abused and abused badly in them, but who cannot say that of ANY crunch-book these days? Some gamers will always find a way to break what has been written.

Well, back to work for me. There are criminals that require warrants, I'm afraid.

Cheers all, and good gaming to all of you.
Bry

 

[treeplanter]

As I said, I enjoy the book actually (and I got it for free anyway, Amazon gift certificate from job ).

There is bad stuff and their is good stuff, like any supplement. Obviously some have more good stuff, other less. The good stuff in the book IS good.

My personnal favourite:
- New noble social ability (I really like Born leader)
- New borderer combat style
- New feat and manoever (Hold ground and Yeoman bane are my favourite, also love Deadly and Shield-splitter).
- New skills uses. Weapon personalization from the craft skill is really cool.

 

[VincentDarlage]

My personnal favourite:
- New noble social ability (I really like Born leader)
- New borderer combat style
- New feat and manoever (Hold ground and Yeoman bane are my favourite, also love Deadly and Shield-splitter).
- New skills uses. Weapon personalization from the craft skill is really cool.

I liked those parts as well. I was really impressed with the noble social abilities.

 

[treeplanter]

So back on topic, what would you guy think of that fix?

"I think a +1 to hit at first level and a +1 damage at 7th level seem more on par with the RAW versatility..."

Would it still be too much? I think this would be balanced with versatility, and give cool option for some archetype. On the other hand maybe you really want to keep attack and damage bonus exclusive to the soldier.

However I really see Nordheimer pick cultural weapon Sword or Axe before versatility, or black kingdom tribsmen picking spear. It add customization to the low-customizable barbarian. I also really like the figthing-frenzy over Crimson mist option, specially for race that don't qualify for fithing-madness.

 

[VincentDarlage]

I don't think there is a good fix for that particular ability. Seriously, I wouldn't allow it. There is a reason barbarians past level 7 aren't allowed Weapon Focus, and your fix is more powerful than Weapon Focus.

 

[treeplanter]

yeah I guess so...

 

[LucaCherstich]

I don't think there is a good fix for that particular ability. Seriously, I wouldn't allow it. There is a reason barbarians past level 7 aren't allowed Weapon Focus, and your fix is more powerful than Weapon Focus.

What's exactly the reason why Barbarians past lev. 7 cannot take Weapon Focus?
Why should it be an un-balanced option?

 

[Vambelte]

More hit for Barbarians = more power attack. And we all know the power attack issues.

I tend to convince players that they can't take weapon focus if they don't take a level on a more organized and cosmopolitan class, like soldier or noble.

 

[LucaCherstich]

I do not see the power attacks issue.
Soldiers and Barbarians have the same ammount of Attack bonuses and of the same scale, this means that they have the same number of attacks per round.
ANd a soldier can have Weapon Specialization already from 4th lev. and later he can get higher levels of weapon focus and specialization.
Furthermore, even if a Bbn 7 has a special kind of versatility (proficient in ALL of the exotic weapons) a Soldier 7 has MANY MORE bonus combat feats and, if you check the numerous combat feats in Conan (Core rule, Hyboria's F series, Warrior comp, etc..) you can find many good ones, and in many ways the Soldier is a warriors more "customizable" than a barbarian.
I do not think A Bbn 7 with weapon focus is deadlier than a Soldier 7.

 

[VincentDarlage]

What's exactly the reason why Barbarians past lev. 7 cannot take Weapon Focus?
Why should it be an un-balanced option?

Of course, I didn't write the rules, but I would guess:

1) Barbarians don't drill incessently with their weapons like a soldier, especially after they get older (ie past level 7) and they become tribal elders/leaders. Soldiers drill until they become extremely good with the weapon they drill with.

2) Soldiers don't generally have to hunt for their food, prepare their food, or do much else during the day but drill, drill, drill. Barbarians have to do a lot of that. For many Barbarian tribes, the weapon they hunt with is not the weapon they go to war with. Often, hunting is handled via trapping, not through fighting. Many barbarian tribes have ritual uses for different weapons. They rarely get a chance to really focus.

3) Weapon Focus/Specialisation is one of two advantages soldiers have over the barbarian. Without that advantage the class becomes seriously underpowered, even with the additional feat slots. It is hard enough for a soldier to stand toe-to-to with a barbarian of equal level without taking away half of his advantages.

4) The barbarian can already increase his attack bonus with Fighting Madness/Crimson Rage.

 

[LucaCherstich]

Vincent, in some ways I agree with your "background" answer, although this is not true in any case.
Vanir barbarians continously use swords raiding the nearby Aesir and Many Black Kingdoms warrriors continuosuly raid nearby tribes with their spears.
Maybe it is not "drill" but "practice"
They should have weapon focus.

The reason why "Who made the rules" (I. Sturrock?) did not allow Barbarians of EXACTLY level 7 to not have weapon focus is because of the Barbarian "Versatility lev. 7" (Proficient with ALL weapons).

Barbarians of earlier levels can still have weapon focus.

So there is a rule balance Issue, not a background one.

I'm not sure about the importance of this "bbn-soldier" balance issue, especially because it is all a matter of which bonus combat feats the soldiers chose.

Nevertheless, possibly my misunderstanding is possibly only due to different playing experiences with different kinds of players than yours.

 

[Sourcerer]

Barbarians have little time for the niceties of civilised swordplay but their unorthodox fighting style allows them to pick up and wield almost any weapon with ease or turn an everyday object such as a heavy bench or treasure chest into a deadly improvised weapon.

With level 7 they reach a point of mastery in their unorthodox fighting style which penalizes their abilities to use the niceties of civilised swordplay (e.g. no more Weapon Focus)
The argument of the rulebok sound even more convincing to me than Vincents background arguments.

Balancing issues might be a reason for that rule, but either way, the rule makes sense and makes barbarian fighting unique - and not necessarily inferior.

 

[Vambelte]

See, just one feat, fighting madness, gives +2 to hit and +2/+3 to damage, depending if the character is using a one handed or a two handed. It also increase your HP, which gets close to compensate the -2 to deffense. Also most barbarians, even whit very high base dodge bonus, tend to have parry as their primary deffense, just bcause they usually have a lot of strenght, and the fighting madness doesn't change their parry deffense, since it gives -2 to DV, but gives +2 to parry, trought the str boost.

So, that's just one feat. Soldiers need to spend 3 feats, and be lvl 8 to get +2 to hit and +2 to damage...

A barbarian whit weapon focus, and using a two-handed weapon, have +3 to hit and +3 to damage, whit no penalty to parry and increased HP, at the first lvl, if he wishes.

And of course, there is all the fighting style argument.

 

[treeplanter]

Figthing-madness is not a barbarian feat tough. It is a racial one. One could play a Cimmerian or Nordheimer soldier and have figthing-madness. AND weapon focus/specialisation

Yeah, that hit hard

 

[VincentDarlage]

Vincent, in some ways I agree with your "background" answer, although this is not true in any case.
Vanir barbarians continously use swords raiding the nearby Aesir and Many Black Kingdoms warrriors continuosuly raid nearby tribes with their spears.
Maybe it is not "drill" but "practice"

Just how many raids per day do you think Barbarians go on to make it equivalent to drilling?

Regardless, Sourcerer hit on the true reason apparently.