What changes would YOU make to Conan Second Edition?

DreadDomain

Mongoose
Clovenhoof, I am sorry to tell you this but it seems you are dead set on finding problems where there aren't any. Then you use dishonest argumentation to belittle my preferences. Not very nice and not very mature. Anyhow let me answer this...

Clovenhoof said:
Right, that's another problem: how, for example, would you handle the Barbarian's versatility? The Barb is supposed to wield all weapons from the Greatsword to the kitchen sink equally effective. So no weapon skill choices for him.

I would use pretty much Versatily as written. Instead of basing the penalty on BAB, I would base it on the highest weapon skill of the Barbarian.

Now to answer your belittling and dishonest argumentation.

Clovenhoof said:
You'd go through all the trouble of first devising a working weapon skill system, and then have to find a way again to make the Barbarian use all weapons equally well, i.e. negate the weapon skill system for this class.

Well so far it hasn't been very problematic. You keep trying to find problem, which is fine, but the tone of your remarks makes me believe constructive criticism isn’t your goal. As you can see “find[ing] a way again to make the Barbarian use all weapons equally well, i.e. negate the weapon skill system for this class” read pretty much like “I would use pretty much Versatily as written”. Could there be more hickups? Of course. I would be surprise if there wouldn’t be any. I am pretty certain there would be solutions as well. But only to people who’d like to look for them. Speaking of constructive criticism, belittling and dishonest argumentation. :

Clovenhoof said:
You'd have to fix a problem that you didn't even have in the first place, before meddling with the system that is.

Aside from the fact that this Versatility problem is pretty much non-existent, the problem FOR ME (in as much as it is a problem) with the system as it is, is the lack of “customability” and freedom of development. You don’t have such a problem and I can really appreciate and respect that. I wish you could feel the same way.

Clovenhoof said:
Which reminds me of the words of wisdom: If it ain't broken, don't fix it.

I am sorry Clovenhoof but I haven’t seen wisdom in the post to which I answer. Snarkiness sure but wisdom not so much. Oh I won’t hold it against you (all forgotten already) but it seems that the time for intelligent discussion is behind us now.

Go well.
 

DreadDomain

Mongoose
slaughterj said:
Well, two things:
1. There aren't fractional points in MnM, but rather, you spend 1 point and get 4 ranks of skills (all in 1 skill, or spread around).
2. In MnM's Masterminds Manual, they offer an optional skills list that combines many skills into one (similar to Iron Heroes, but a bit different grouping, and an idea I quite like), and suggest that 1 rank in those enlarged skills could cost 1 point.

Oh I see. It all make sense now.
 

Clovenhoof

Mongoose
@DreadDomain:
Wait a minute, it was not my intention to belittle you. And as opposed to you, I only addressed the concept of weapon skills, and did not resort to totally uncalled for ad hominems. Now that's what I call, let's say, not very nice.

I give criticism, yes. Not in all cases constructive criticism, since I don't see much merit in the idea. I am sure you can make it work. But I am also sure it wouldn't make Conan a better game. So I'm not going out of my way to come up with a complete game modification.

The other day, I proposed a modification to base defense off a skill so it would allow higher defense values than with the current progressions. And I was pretty much bashed for it (or rather: the idea was bashed). I read the comments about why that was a bad idea, got the point and was quickly convinced. And I publicly said so, and did not attack the other forumites for pointing out the flaws in my proposal. You, however, do that. Now I ask, what is less mature?
 

DreadDomain

Mongoose
Clovenhoof said:
@DreadDomain:
Wait a minute, it was not my intention to belittle you.

Oh, I didn't feel you were belittling (sp?) me but my preferences. But maybe I read to much in your posts.

Clovenhoof said:
And as opposed to you, I only addressed the concept of weapon skills, and did not resort to totally uncalled for ad hominems. Now that's what I call, let's say, not very nice.

As far as I know I don't think I have attacked you personally (althought if a badly turned sentence led you to believe so, allow me to apologize). If I had done so, it would had been totally uncalled for I concur. I certainly voiced my discontent at your lack of objective argumentation. In your following paragraph you go as far as to say it wasn't uncalled for.

Clovenhoof said:
I give criticism, yes. Not in all cases constructive criticism, since I don't see much merit in the idea. I am sure you can make it work. But I am also sure it wouldn't make Conan a better game. So I'm not going out of my way to come up with a complete game modification.

You don't see merit in that idea and you are convinced it wouldn't make Conan a better game. That is all fine and I have no problem with it. But if your are unwilling (or simply uninterested) to look seriously into it with an objective mind, why then try and try and try to find flaws you are not even interested in resolving (rethorical question)? This is what I called dishonest argumentation.

Clovenhoof said:
The other day, I proposed a modification to base defense off a skill so it would allow higher defense values than with the current progressions. And I was pretty much bashed for it (or rather: the idea was bashed). I read the comments about why that was a bad idea, got the point and was quickly convinced.

I cannot comment on these events nor the quality of the discussion around your idea. I can only guess that if you were convinced, proper examples and argumentation were given to you.

Clovenhoof said:
And I publicly said so, and did not attack the other forumites for pointing out the flaws in my proposal. You, however, do that.

Again, I do not feel I have attacked you but criticized your unconstructive approach. However, the fact that you feel that way leads me to believe I didn't phrased my feelings with enough care.

Clovenhoof said:
Now I ask, what is less mature?

Trying to make a contest out of it perhaps?

In any case, I have said pretty much all I had to say on this and wouldn't dare take more forum space discussing it. Feel free to answer if you feel the need. I will read but won't comment on this subject anymore. If you want more feedback, you can PM me and I will gladly take some time to answer.
 

Kargush

Mongoose
I haven't read the entire thread(I'll do it later), but here are some comments on what I found worth commenting:

Trodax said:
* Include the Temptress class. This is a no-brainer really; if the Temptress is one of the nine core classes, it should be in the core rulebook.

More classes in general please... But have in mind that this isn't DnD. A martial artist class is nice, but no DnD Monks please.

Trodax said:
* Fine-tune the classes slightly. A lot of people seem to think that for example the Noble is underpowered (which I sort of agree with) and the Barbarian overpowered (which I really only agree with if you're looking at levels 10-20). Anyway, I would go through the classes carefully and tweak where needed; sticking in a little bonus feat here and there perhaps.

Maybe a little change to the Barbarian and the Borderer. The Noble works fine in his role, the leader and the party "face".

Trodax said:
* Change the dodge/parry progression of the Barbarian class to that of the Borderer/Nomad/Thief. For the King of Versatility, I think this is a better fit than the current super-dodge/crap-parry. It would also make it possible to have more efficient Nordheimer Barbarians that are clad in heavy armor and not just naked whopping Picts and Kushites.

Well, maybe keep the 15 Dodge at 20th level, but up the Parry to 10. Or maybe get both to 12 or so.

Trodax said:
* Expand the available spells at low levels somewhat. As it is now, it can be hard to create a low-level sorcerer if you start with certain sorcery styles. There might not be a spell that's possible for you to choose at certain levels, or there might just be one to "choose" from (Nature Magic and Prestigiation are the most flexible, IIRC). If you have Scrolls of Skelos or any other spell-containing supplements it gets better, but I think it should be possible with just the core book. Just a couple more low-level spells would do the trick I think.

A change that must be done. Though some of the styles should stay "hard".

Trodax said:
* Make it so that an Initiative roll is really a straight up roll with your entire Reflex save. This makes the most sense to me and would also make things clearer for newcomers. "Do I add Lightning Reflexes to my Initiative?" is a question that's come up repeatedly on these boards.

In the pocket edition(Atlantean) it states only the base reflex, that is, at 1st level, a Barbarian adds dex, a +2 for reflex, and then whatever initiative bonuses he might have(like Improved Initiative). Personally, as a DM, I'd never let the player add anything that doesn't state that it works on Initiative, like Improved Initiative does.

Trodax said:
* Slightly reduce the damage of the big two-handed weapons (perhaps from 2d10 to 2d8 for a greatsword, for example). This seems to be one of the main complaints people have regarding combat; that big two-handed weapons are simply too powerful. I kind of agree with this, and I think their damage could be reduced slightly without them becoming underpowered when compared to other fighting styles (shield, two weapons).

Well, maybe... I think thay work nicely, but sure, a little cropping might be in order.

Trodax said:
* I'd also remove the Thief's sneak attack style ability so that sneak attacks are restricted to d6's, to somewhat cut down on those huge piles of sneak damage at medium to high levels. Another very common complaint: "Sneak attack is overpowered!!! OMG WTF, this is so broken!!!" While I don't agree 100% with those statements, I do think that the damage could be restricted a little bit (the Thief class would have to be compensated in some way, of course).

Good idea. But then again, I haven't had too many thiefs in my games. Only one(NPC) so far. And the SA didn't do jack, it was his poison that did it(apple of derketa juice).

Trodax said:
* Make it clear once and for all how the Monster Slayer feat is supposed to work. There was errata for this, but it wasn't clear either. Or, an easier solution, just remove the feat entirely; I'm not a big fan of it anyway.

Again, in the pocked editon of the Atlantean editon it is perfectly clear. So I don't know what the fuzz is all about. Could someone please explain?

Trodax said:
* Last but not least; redo Defensive Blast so that it has explicitly stated rules that make it impossible to use it in an offensive "charge in and blow stuff up"-mode. Or perhaps just remove it entirely.

I think it works fine. It is, after all, supposed to be a last ditch defense, and it the sorcerer sees that he can't possible take down all those savages before he gets speared, then let his jump in and go boom.

Trodax said:
* Oh, one more. The only change I would like to see regarding the otherwise excellent setting is this; put in elves and dwarves. It's really not a fantasy RPG without them.

:evil: This is Sword and Sorcery, not Fantasy. And the world of Conan doesn't have elves or dwarfs.

VincentDarlage said:
The change I would MOST like to see is a well-researched map (incorporating Dale Rippke's recent essays and research, of course).

Yes! Now! I'm tired of having to explain things and cart about a couple of old Conan issues to show and tell...
 

rgrove0172

Mongoose
Ive avoided commenting on this thread as Im very new to the rules and didnt think any limited observations I might have would be worth much. Someone above however did comment how this rule might reflect Howard's writing. On this I do have an opinion. Effective game system, needless compexity and other such factors asise, I find the fact that most characters begin the game with a huge array of weapon experience decidedly unrealistic and pretty anti-Howard if one could use such a phrase. Simply because a barbarian for example, is raised in a pretty martial enviroment does not mean he is exposed to he welath of weaponry listed in the game.

Just the other night Im reading "Queen of the Black Coast" and I seem to remember a passage wherein Conan is said to have learned the Bow while he served in Turan. In another tale, the name which excapes me but I believe it was a DeCamp story, it specifically states that Conan's effectiveness in the Turanian army was stunted or a bit while he learned the bow and horsemanship.

If we want to ignore individual or at least category based weapon skill for the sake of simplicity, thats fine by me - but I think it rediculous to ignore the fact that its a realistic aspect to a character's development. I can recall numerous stories where Conan's favor of his straight-bladed western broadsword is mentioned with the fact that he was forced to use a Tulwar or other such "strange blade" in a pinch.

It just makes sense, but again, - not a big deal to me.
 

Foxworthy

Mongoose
rgrove0172 said:
Just the other night Im reading "Queen of the Black Coast" and I seem to remember a passage wherein Conan is said to have learned the Bow while he served in Turan. In another tale, the name which excapes me but I believe it was a DeCamp story, it specifically states that Conan's effectiveness in the Turanian army was stunted or a bit while he learned the bow and horsemanship.

If we want to ignore individual or at least category based weapon skill for the sake of simplicity, thats fine by me - but I think it rediculous to ignore the fact that its a realistic aspect to a character's development. I can recall numerous stories where Conan's favor of his straight-bladed western broadsword is mentioned with the fact that he was forced to use a Tulwar or other such "strange blade" in a pinch.

It just makes sense, but again, - not a big deal to me.

Of course all those examples are covered by the rules for using weapons your not proficient in. Since those weapons are exotic weapons a person has a -4 penatly to using it unless they have versatilty.

Yes The war classes have many weapons that they can use well but BAB bonus represents the ability to pick up a weapon and swing it. For example picking up axe and swining it if you know how to use a sword.

Specialized knowledge of using a single weapon is represented by Weapon Focus, Weapon Spec, and the Critical improving feats.

The question comes down to is whether or not knowing how to use a one weapon make you understand the basic principle of using other weapons. The system currently expresses this by using weapon proficiencies.

Now does Conan being only able to kill well with one weapon while being unskilled in every other weapon appear in Howard. That's what weapon skills do. Making Weapon skills into groups is just over complicating Base Attack Bonus and the solution of basing unskilled weapons off of main weapon skill minus four is exactly like BAB, except with the characters being less capable in a fight.

Making BAB into a skill does allow players to turn sacrafice attack skill into skill points that's all it does. It also makes it closer to a classless point buy system since all the classes would be at this point is a set of feat guidlines.

If you're going that far you might as well switch to Runequest with the system.
 

Sutek

Mongoose
Foxworthy said:
Of course all those examples are covered by the rules for using weapons your not proficient in. Since those weapons are exotic weapons a person has a -4 penatly to using it unless they have versatilty.

Not for Barbarians. They only suffer a -2 with any weapon in the game, but he's suggesting weapon use should be harder to aquire. I agree, but I'm not sure how to fairly do it.

Maybe Classes have a cultural weapon list that they are proficient with instead of ageneral list. Vendyans are proficient with X, Y, Z and Cimmerians are proficient with A, B, C...something like that. Then, other weapons, even ones made in different cultures or countries, are capped at BAB equal to the governing stat (STR or DEX) while the cultural weapons stick to the Class BAB progession. That won't matter much at lower levels, but when BAB gets higher, sticking with a culturally favored weapon would grant a higher BAB.

Not really weapon skills so much as cultural availability. Maybe weapon proficiency can be moved from Class to Race. Nah...that goes too far against D20... :?
 

Padre

Mongoose
An idea for the mighty 2-handers: give them a -2 to hit mod. They're big, heavy, you can't swing them as fast as lighter weapons. And maybe a -2 to parry?
 

Clovenhoof

Mongoose
Padre said:
An idea for the mighty 2-handers: give them a -2 to hit mod. They're big, heavy, you can't swing them as fast as lighter weapons. And maybe a -2 to parry?

Now you are getting where the aforementioned Dark Eye game was in its second edition around 20 years ago. *g* I find it interesting to see how ideas evolve in the same direction. For the records, the penalty system was abandoned a few years later and replaced with a weapon comparison chart. ^^
 

Foxworthy

Mongoose
Sutek said:
Foxworthy said:
Of course all those examples are covered by the rules for using weapons your not proficient in. Since those weapons are exotic weapons a person has a -4 penatly to using it unless they have versatilty.

Not for Barbarians. They only suffer a -2 with any weapon in the game, but he's suggesting weapon use should be harder to aquire. I agree, but I'm not sure how to fairly do it.

Maybe Classes have a cultural weapon list that they are proficient with instead of ageneral list. Vendyans are proficient with X, Y, Z and Cimmerians are proficient with A, B, C...something like that. Then, other weapons, even ones made in different cultures or countries, are capped at BAB equal to the governing stat (STR or DEX) while the cultural weapons stick to the Class BAB progession. That won't matter much at lower levels, but when BAB gets higher, sticking with a culturally favored weapon would grant a higher BAB.

Not really weapon skills so much as cultural availability. Maybe weapon proficiency can be moved from Class to Race. Nah...that goes too far against D20... :?

Well races that have a culturally favored weapon do have a greater bonus when using. Bossonians do get a +1 to hit with the Bossonian Longbow. As for it being hard to aquire that could be as simple as requiring time in your campaign for the ability to gain a feat with a level up.

As for the barbarian point I did mention versatility and at a high enough level barbarians get no penalty to using any weapon. Which seems a bit over powered. As does the increased threat ranges with all melee weapons.
 

Foxworthy

Mongoose
Sutek said:
Foxworthy said:
Of course all those examples are covered by the rules for using weapons your not proficient in. Since those weapons are exotic weapons a person has a -4 penatly to using it unless they have versatilty.

Not for Barbarians. They only suffer a -2 with any weapon in the game, but he's suggesting weapon use should be harder to aquire. I agree, but I'm not sure how to fairly do it.

Maybe Classes have a cultural weapon list that they are proficient with instead of ageneral list. Vendyans are proficient with X, Y, Z and Cimmerians are proficient with A, B, C...something like that. Then, other weapons, even ones made in different cultures or countries, are capped at BAB equal to the governing stat (STR or DEX) while the cultural weapons stick to the Class BAB progession. That won't matter much at lower levels, but when BAB gets higher, sticking with a culturally favored weapon would grant a higher BAB.

Not really weapon skills so much as cultural availability. Maybe weapon proficiency can be moved from Class to Race. Nah...that goes too far against D20... :?

Well races that have a culturally favored weapon do have a greater bonus when using. Bossonians do get a +1 to hit with the Bossonian Longbow. As for it being hard to aquire that could be as simple as requiring time in your campaign for the ability to gain a feat with a level up.

As for the barbarian point I did mention versatility and at a high enough level barbarians get no penalty to using any weapon. Which seems a bit over powered. As does the increased threat ranges with all melee weapons.
 

Trodax

Mongoose
Some more things I'd like to see (some of these might have been mentioned before):

* Add a section to the Combat chapter that describes and defines the various conditions of the d20 system: Stunned, Dazed, Shaken, Panicked etc. I think this would make things clearer and easier, and it would always be certain what was meant with the various terms. Also, when these conditions where used by different spells and feats and so, the entire rule wouldn't have to be spelled out; you could just refer to the description in their own section.

* Along the same lines, add a section to the Bestiary chapter that defines the various creature Types. For example, what HD, BAB, Saves, and special rules that apply to creatures of the Undead type. This would make the creature stats much more understandable for d20 newbies, and help out when designing new creatures.

* Add rules for various stuff like falling, drowning, starvation, dehydration, fire-damage etc.

All of the above is stuff that is pretty easy for a d20 veteran to figure out, but for someone new to d20 it can be quite confusing. Since Conan should be a stand-alone game, I think this stuff should be in the rulebook.
 
I posted some suggestions way back at the start of this thread, and I'd like to put them out there one more time.

1. Let Soldiers take the same Formation Combat multiple times. Soldiers are specialists, so let them specialize! Up to a +3 bonus.
2. Remove Bite Sword from the Barbarian class, replace with a bonus feat.
(keep it for Pirates,though.)
3. For races with two Favored Classes, make it a choice of one or the other at character creation. Let multiclassing without delaying FC feats be a
Hyborian -only advantage.

MP
 

Trodax

Mongoose
Valgrim said:
2. Remove Bite Sword from the Barbarian class, replace with a bonus feat.
(keep it for Pirates,though.)
I like Bite Sword; it's one of those almost silly, but kind of cool abilities. The reason barbarians get it is I'm guessing is because Conan actually does stick his sword in his mouth in one of the stories (The Jewels of Gwahlur, IIRC).
 

Majestic7

Mongoose
Trodax said:
Valgrim said:
2. Remove Bite Sword from the Barbarian class, replace with a bonus feat.
(keep it for Pirates,though.)
I like Bite Sword; it's one of those almost silly, but kind of cool abilities. The reason barbarians get it is I'm guessing is because Conan actually does stick his sword in his mouth in one of the stories (The Jewels of Gwahlur, IIRC).

IIRC the bite sword for barbarians doesn't have a size limit for the weapon, though. So in theory, the barb could run around with a greatsword held between teeth. That is rather silly.
 

Trodax

Mongoose
Majestic7 said:
IIRC the bite sword for barbarians doesn't have a size limit for the weapon, though. So in theory, the barb could run around with a greatsword held between teeth. That is rather silly.
I don't have my book with me but I think it only works for light weapons and one-handed slashing weapons (with the duration being a number of minutes for light weapons and a number of rounds for a one-hander).
A greatsword or bardiche between your teeth would be damn silly, on that I agree. :)
 

Padre

Mongoose
And another idea - give us some gritty critical hit effects. Broken legs, severed arms, eye-popping-spine-splitting-gorefest!
 
I agree completely, Padre! Like in Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay(1st Ed.).
Gushing arteries, sickening crunches! Flying severed heads(role 1d6 for direction and distance)!
:twisted:
MP
 
Top