What changes would YOU make to Conan Second Edition?
- Thread starter Trodax
- Start date
Yogah of Yag
Mongoose
Evil_Trevor said:
For the past 2-3 years I've known about this guy who provides character generators for D&D and other RPG stuff:
D&D3.5:
http://www.pathguy.com/cg35.htm
d20 Modern:
http://www.pathguy.com/d20modern.htm
d20 Cthulhu:
http://www.pathguy.com/cthulhu.htm
Maybe we can coax him to make one for Conan. 8)
Sutek
Mongoose
slaughterj said:
And I'm suggesting that if shields offered a concealment bonus rather than DV at all, then that bonus always applies to everything regardless if the character chooses Dodge or Parry or if he can do neither.
If a shield grants a flat 15% miss chance to attacks because it just gets in the way of things whenther you actively hold it up in front of you to block a blow or not (or to put it another way, if you have a shield, you almost automatically wear it in a defensive position unless it's slung on your back) then it always offers that defense regardless of the type of attack.
Besides, it may always be in effect, in either my version or slaughterj's, but the bonus is still very small compared to getting full Dodge/Parry bonus to DV. That's far better still.
Why exactly would it be breaking the bank, so to speak, to have shield bonuses in effect at all times? It definitely promotes buying one instead of going the usual 2-handed weapon route.
MadDog said:
That's my feeling too. If you don't want to use it then you don't have to. A 2nd edition is a chance to tinker with it though and make it more Howardian. Like using corruption or having scholars take a physical attribute loss like strength, constitution or dex. Something that reflects the high cost of magic in Hyboria.
True, but that's not going to happen...Padre said:
Padre said:
Because Mongoose books cost more. Compare Core book to any line with a single core and you'll find it's $10 more, ($50 compared to $40). So following standard Conan pricing 2 books will run $35-40 each.
Padre said:
Not useless, per se, just not really needed, nor preferrable.
Padre said:
Not really, besides the creature features, there isn't much GM only material...
Valgrim Bragisson
Mongoose
I like the game as is, but would make some tweaks to classes.
1. Let Soldiers take the same Formation Combat up to 3 times for a +3 bonus, and replace Formation Mastery with a 5th selection. This would let soldiers truly specialize, rather than forcing them to learn EVERY formation regardless of character concept. Let a 20th leval Zingaran Marine have Marine+3/Skermisher+2, for instance.
2. Add Archery and Two Handed Weapon formations.
3. Remove the silly and nearly useless Bite Sword from the Barbarian class. Replace with Toughness, Great Fortitude, or Self Sufficient.
4. Make Soldier a second Favored Class for Nordhiemir.
5. Do not Change Borderers or Scholars. Specialization is not Weakness!
MP
1. Let Soldiers take the same Formation Combat up to 3 times for a +3 bonus, and replace Formation Mastery with a 5th selection. This would let soldiers truly specialize, rather than forcing them to learn EVERY formation regardless of character concept. Let a 20th leval Zingaran Marine have Marine+3/Skermisher+2, for instance.
2. Add Archery and Two Handed Weapon formations.
3. Remove the silly and nearly useless Bite Sword from the Barbarian class. Replace with Toughness, Great Fortitude, or Self Sufficient.
4. Make Soldier a second Favored Class for Nordhiemir.
5. Do not Change Borderers or Scholars. Specialization is not Weakness!
MP
For the moment this is my wishlist:
Hyborian Grimoire:
1. More spells and more sorcery styles.
2. Instead of a sorcery style every four levels, just give sorcerers a spell, and let them decide if they want a new style or an advanced spell. Having more styles allows for versatility at lower "spell levels" instead of depth in fewer sorcery styles.
3. Or, allow a feat to be traded for a new sorcery style, just as you can do the opposite.
4. This will give you access to the basic spell of more styles, but improving in your selection of styles will still be limited by the number of spells you gain as you advance in the Scholar class, so again it is breadth vs depth. When designing scholars. I have often found myself wanting access to the basic spells of more styles, rather than gaining acces to more powerful spells of the styles already learned.
5. Provide more options for lower level spells.
6. Provide more culture based spells, specialy for the exotic cultures.
7. Drop the loss of PPs over time, as gaining PPs isn't near easy without sacrificing people, slumbering over black lotus fumes, comanding a pseudo-cult based upon yourself, etc.
8. DB shoub be rewritten.
9. Compendiate spells published in different books, as well as alchemical and herbalism substances, herbs statistics as featured in Hyboria's Fiercest, Finest and Fallen, magic items, expansions on sorcery rules, etc, or else re-edit the Scrolls fo Skellos.
Venom rules:
10. I also would like to see this revamped. I would make them more perilous by having they take half efect even if the saving throw is made. Having the noxious substances enter your system without any simptom is just unreal.
Feats skills and abilities:
11. Compendiate all published in different books.
Hyborian Grimoire:
1. More spells and more sorcery styles.
2. Instead of a sorcery style every four levels, just give sorcerers a spell, and let them decide if they want a new style or an advanced spell. Having more styles allows for versatility at lower "spell levels" instead of depth in fewer sorcery styles.
3. Or, allow a feat to be traded for a new sorcery style, just as you can do the opposite.
4. This will give you access to the basic spell of more styles, but improving in your selection of styles will still be limited by the number of spells you gain as you advance in the Scholar class, so again it is breadth vs depth. When designing scholars. I have often found myself wanting access to the basic spells of more styles, rather than gaining acces to more powerful spells of the styles already learned.
5. Provide more options for lower level spells.
6. Provide more culture based spells, specialy for the exotic cultures.
7. Drop the loss of PPs over time, as gaining PPs isn't near easy without sacrificing people, slumbering over black lotus fumes, comanding a pseudo-cult based upon yourself, etc.
8. DB shoub be rewritten.
9. Compendiate spells published in different books, as well as alchemical and herbalism substances, herbs statistics as featured in Hyboria's Fiercest, Finest and Fallen, magic items, expansions on sorcery rules, etc, or else re-edit the Scrolls fo Skellos.
Venom rules:
10. I also would like to see this revamped. I would make them more perilous by having they take half efect even if the saving throw is made. Having the noxious substances enter your system without any simptom is just unreal.
Feats skills and abilities:
11. Compendiate all published in different books.
No. It is annoying. It means people are either too strong or too weak depending on the situation, and it means that many campaigns just won't use them at all. Anyway, my problem with Borderer is not that it is too weak (although it is) its that it is irrelevant. Its niche can be covered quite happily with Barbarian, which is an all round better class.
kintire said:
I don't want to get too heavily into the class debate but I do see a real conceptual difference between a Barbarian from the wilderness and a Borderer who's a frontiersman pushing into that wilderness.
Maybe the existing class doesn't cover that too well but I do think there's reason enough to have the two classes.
toothill man
Mongoose
something that works well in slaine is that every tribe (for conan read nation) has unique spells that are for that group only and is a signature and by getting the say stygian spell feat it gives a starting scholar a leg up only a idea but as I say works well in slaine which was the proto-type for conan 
also love the idea of snake based spells for stygians,ice based for hyborians etc nothing too powerful but to give alot of national flavour and differance
also love the idea of snake based spells for stygians,ice based for hyborians etc nothing too powerful but to give alot of national flavour
and differanceif every character can handle every situation then why have a party? and if everything can be handle competently by all classes then why have more than one?
of course they arent, if you decide to make a frontiersman in a campaign set primarily in cities(which conan really shouldn be :wink: ) then thats the players choice/fault. its either the opportunity for some good roleplaying(country boy/barbarian heads to the big city) or alot of whinging.
now as for DB and scholar survivability. from the stories i got that most of them got high lvl by actively avoiding big people with bigger weapons and used alchemy as a defense(magic to most in the hyorian age). maye give them some alchemical items as part of their starting kit for free unless of course the GM wants to start everyone off with nothing inwhich case they are in the same boat as everyone else.
Yogah of Yag said:
I'd definetely love to get a character generator for the game. Making generic NPC's is a such fuss with Conan/D&D 3.5, I usually use much lighter systems. Although I like using some times to fleshing out important NPC's, it would be nice to be able to make generic dudes with just a few clicks of your mouse.
One more thing:
* Make it clear if the feat Intricate Swordplay is allowed to be used together with a shield or an off-hand weapon.
* Make it clear if the feat Intricate Swordplay is allowed to be used together with a shield or an off-hand weapon.
Voltumna, I'm not certain what you mean by this, but one thing is sure: I definitely do not want to see many more feats in Conan 2nd. The number in the Atlantean edition I think is quite good. Too many feats in the core rulebook and the game will quickly become pretty daunting for beginners. IMHO, more options is not always a good thing if you want the game to feel slick and clear and be easy to get into for newcomers.Voltumna said:
In the name of promoting character variety:
1. Attributes - STR's benefits should be brought more in line with DEX's.
2. Race - PCs have all classes as favoured; won't eliminate the world's stereotypes but helps eliminate the PC stereotypes.
3. First level - Change the initial skill ranks to a fixed number (like 20) plus 4xINT Mod. plus one level of first level class. Or, some other method that doesn't encourage taking only a limited number of classes at first level.
4. Class - Major overhaul.
5. Feats - Major overhaul.
6. Weapon stats - Bring the true efficiencies of different close range combat styles into some semblance of balance.
One more shot at trying to explain the problem as I see it: The problem is that a lot of races, classes, feats, and combat styles just aren't worth using not because in absolute terms they are that awful but because in relative terms other options are so much more effective.
It's not a "Why did I build this character?" experience but a "Why didn't I build a different character who is going to be a lot like every other character?" one. As much as personality and experiences could result in differentiated characters, having the rules encourage cookiecutter characters is discouraging.
It's possible to come up with a campaign where the bardiche-wielding, 20 STR, cleaving barbarian is not a good choice. That's not the point. The point is that for most sets of options, one option is clearly superior to the other.
A first level dude with no feats and with a bardiche or greatsword and a 16 STR does 2d10+5 damage and APs most stuff. Add in some seasoning and you have a character who consistently forces massive damage saves. Thieves don't take very long to force them either, though there are times when sneak attack isn't usable. Really, the discrepancy between forcing a MDS and not is so ... uh ... massive that it's easy for someone without at least one of - 2H weapon, Power Attack, Sneak Attack - to be just taking up space in combat.
Sure, you can jump through hoops to try to be as effective (not just in combat) as another character who was built better, but that seems only appealing for people looking for a challenge. For instance, while one character is sinking two feats into being a combat powerhouse and can diversify from there, the character with half a dozen feats to be similarly combat useful doesn't have the ability to diversify and will remain behind the curve in some other area.
Combat is the most obvious place for comparison, but it's the same story elsewhere. Having a high INT out of the gate generates increasing benefits where WIS's, for instance, are static. A lot of noncombat feats effectively don't exist because no one in their right mind would take them because others are so much better.
Now, while trying to bring diversity into characters would be my focus, there's quite a list of individual changes I'd also like to see. I personally despise how codes of honour currently work as they are money for nothing, for instance.
I actually don't have much of an opinion on defensive blast. It seems horribly wrong, but I want to playtest a scholar first or, at least, see enough antagonist scholar abuses of it. I would say that one of the less obvious benefits of it is that it give a real purpose to ranged combat.
And, much like I prefer options in character archetypes, having more options in spells would be more fun - again, diversity.
1. Attributes - STR's benefits should be brought more in line with DEX's.
2. Race - PCs have all classes as favoured; won't eliminate the world's stereotypes but helps eliminate the PC stereotypes.
3. First level - Change the initial skill ranks to a fixed number (like 20) plus 4xINT Mod. plus one level of first level class. Or, some other method that doesn't encourage taking only a limited number of classes at first level.
4. Class - Major overhaul.
5. Feats - Major overhaul.
6. Weapon stats - Bring the true efficiencies of different close range combat styles into some semblance of balance.
One more shot at trying to explain the problem as I see it: The problem is that a lot of races, classes, feats, and combat styles just aren't worth using not because in absolute terms they are that awful but because in relative terms other options are so much more effective.
It's not a "Why did I build this character?" experience but a "Why didn't I build a different character who is going to be a lot like every other character?" one. As much as personality and experiences could result in differentiated characters, having the rules encourage cookiecutter characters is discouraging.
It's possible to come up with a campaign where the bardiche-wielding, 20 STR, cleaving barbarian is not a good choice. That's not the point. The point is that for most sets of options, one option is clearly superior to the other.
A first level dude with no feats and with a bardiche or greatsword and a 16 STR does 2d10+5 damage and APs most stuff. Add in some seasoning and you have a character who consistently forces massive damage saves. Thieves don't take very long to force them either, though there are times when sneak attack isn't usable. Really, the discrepancy between forcing a MDS and not is so ... uh ... massive that it's easy for someone without at least one of - 2H weapon, Power Attack, Sneak Attack - to be just taking up space in combat.
Sure, you can jump through hoops to try to be as effective (not just in combat) as another character who was built better, but that seems only appealing for people looking for a challenge. For instance, while one character is sinking two feats into being a combat powerhouse and can diversify from there, the character with half a dozen feats to be similarly combat useful doesn't have the ability to diversify and will remain behind the curve in some other area.
Combat is the most obvious place for comparison, but it's the same story elsewhere. Having a high INT out of the gate generates increasing benefits where WIS's, for instance, are static. A lot of noncombat feats effectively don't exist because no one in their right mind would take them because others are so much better.
Now, while trying to bring diversity into characters would be my focus, there's quite a list of individual changes I'd also like to see. I personally despise how codes of honour currently work as they are money for nothing, for instance.
I actually don't have much of an opinion on defensive blast. It seems horribly wrong, but I want to playtest a scholar first or, at least, see enough antagonist scholar abuses of it. I would say that one of the less obvious benefits of it is that it give a real purpose to ranged combat.
And, much like I prefer options in character archetypes, having more options in spells would be more fun - again, diversity.
