LilithsThrall
Mongoose
Saxon said:
I think you've just given an elegant summary of all that's wrong with 4e and why it'd be a mistake to use it for Conan.
What if Conan leaves d20 for anotehr system?
- Thread starter LucaCherstich
- Start date
I think you've just given an elegant summary of all that's wrong with 4e and why it'd be a mistake to use it for Conan.
LilithsThrall
Mongoose
kintire said:
Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
Personally, I don't see much point in playing a table top MMORPG sim.
MMORPGs are the way they are because they couldn't be as good as table top games in a number of ways. For table top games to degrade themselves to be more like MMORPGs is ridiculously bad strategy.
I am presently playing in a 4th Edition "campaign" -well a set of linked encounters. I would tend to agree that it is good at what it tries to be - a board game with some roleplaying elements.....
it especially appeals to the 3 of the players who are heavily into their Warcraft........
its a fun night out with a board game - but its not really roleplaying - or at least thus far.
On the other hand the D20 game I was quite enjoying (as it was very story based) has degenrated rapdily as more levels were gained and magic levels / items into encounter of the week.
it especially appeals to the 3 of the players who are heavily into their Warcraft........
its a fun night out with a board game - but its not really roleplaying - or at least thus far.
On the other hand the D20 game I was quite enjoying (as it was very story based) has degenrated rapdily as more levels were gained and magic levels / items into encounter of the week.
LilithsThrall said:
Could you be more specific in what you find bothersome? Because, just speaking broadly about stuff that's weak doesn't rate to me as a major concern. That's no worse than feat imbalances.
Spell progression - I find some of the spell progression ridiculous. I have a newish character trying out the Fire style and deciding whether to go for moderately useful or to go for pretty much useless until you hit "crackin'ly cool" is a chore. Oh well, much of the Conan options for characters were only meant for NPCs anyway. There are enough worthwhile spells out there, especially with supplements, to have a wee bit of PC build options.
Alchemy - I just find the whole subject illdefined. The question has come up before "How many bombs does the sorcerer get?" Answer pretty much seems to be however many the GM wants the sorcerer to have. For a PC alchemist, I'd have production be more role-playing based to where a PC gets either the right amount or the amount they deserved based on the decisions made.
Bad spells - Sure are a lot of them. I point valued all of the 2e mainbook spells on a scale of 0-10. If you take 5-6 as average, then I have 43 bad spells, 8 average, and 19 good spells ... for a *PC* in *our* campaign.
Entire styles have major problems - Oriental's spells are way too expensive, Necromancy has few options, Summoning is not PC oriented. Supplements haven't appeared to fix these. But, again, sorcery is largely a NPC mechanic. A PC sorcerer will have limited options for general use spells, but there shouldn't be much in the way of PC sorcerers or much spellcasting by those sorcerers.
It depends upon how you see PC sorcery. I look at it where a PC needs to be effective without ever casting a spell. I don't mean effective in combat, just effective to a party. Our main campaign sorcerer is a huge knowledge base, which is often far, far more important than how much damage someone does a round. A PC should also figure out a way to be functional in combat, even if it's just how to maximize the benefits of going total defense every round. *Then*, put spellcasting on top and you get an effective PC who can do things that no one else can do.
I would not recommend a scholar to a player who isn't clever or strategic, being able to identify useful spells and resource management are huge parts to playing a PC scholar in our experience.
I would not recommend a scholar to someone with a buttkicker mentality. It's not impossible for a scholar to fight, my sorcerer in a side campaign has done most of the fighting for the party so far (just got up to 4th level). But, it's unwise to be aggressive, our main sorcerer (noble/scholar 2/11) spends a lot of time unconscious because he doesn't grasp the concept that he sucks at fighting.
For NPC sorcery, I wouldn't worry about spell progression or PP costs or how many Demonfires they can afford, I'd let them do whatever I'd want to make the scene dramatic and challenging.
LilithsThrall
Mongoose
Ichabod said:
I've already stated some of the problems I have with the sorcerry rules rather specifically.
What's so "just speaking broadly" about "alchemy based on silver (making it too expensive for the sorcerer levels where it's needed most and too abundant for sorcerers who need it least)", for example?
rabindranath72
Mongoose
I suppose what people finds problematic with Sorcery is that a lot of DM fiat goes into it, for many of its aspects. For people who is used to the d20 mindset that all should be spelled out completely and unambiguously (like combat) this may sound as incomplete or wrong.
IMO with the exception of some "flavor" issues (e.g. Defensive Blasts) I find the Sorcery rules quite interesting.
IMO with the exception of some "flavor" issues (e.g. Defensive Blasts) I find the Sorcery rules quite interesting.
rabindranath72
Mongoose
Well, Conan d20 is not that different, what with all the maneuvers, and the overly detailed combat system, with a page full of modifiers, threatened squares, etc. At least 4e streamlines lots of the tactical aspects which make d20 3.5 (and Conan) a nightmare to run for the less tactically inclined. I prefer C&C and AD&D's abstract systems much more.LilithsThrall said:
LilithsThrall
Mongoose
rabindranath72 said:
I respectfully disagree. Just look at how many powers exist to move a character a single hex (and it matters whether the character is being pushed, pulled, or slid) and the various ways those powers can be activated (standard action, move action, interrupt, etc.). This is the opposite of streamlined. It's exponentially more detail than exists in Conan d20 and it is far more complex. I'm a software engineer by trade. I know mathematics and strategy, and at the end of my work day, I want to turn that part of my brain off and let it rest. 4e has chosen a game strategy which demands being ripped out of the immersive experience and thinking much more about strategy and mathematics.
LilithsThrall
Mongoose
rabindranath72 said:
If the best defense you can muster for these rules is that we can just ignore these rules, that's not a very good defense.
I can almost understand this level of angst and anger in a competitive minis game or ccg. Conan is a roleplaying game and a very good one at that. It is far from complex and all of its complexities add a lot of flavor to the game. Abstraction = boring. For any game in general and especially for an RPG, any group should feel free to change whatever they do not like in order to allow their group to have the most fun possible. Balance is overrated as far as RPGs are concerned and what may seem balanced to one group may not be to another. The way some of you go on and on about this one would think that there is some sort of national tournament with a lot of money on the line. :lol:
Page 8 of the Core rules: "The first and most important rule of Conan the Roleplaying Game is that if you do not like it, change it."
If you find the game to be too complex, drop what you do not like. How hard is it to ignore synergy bonuses? Rather than complain on an RPG forum that a game should be stripped down to your level, simply drop any rules you find to be too taxing and go on with your life.
Page 8 of the Core rules: "The first and most important rule of Conan the Roleplaying Game is that if you do not like it, change it."
If you find the game to be too complex, drop what you do not like. How hard is it to ignore synergy bonuses? Rather than complain on an RPG forum that a game should be stripped down to your level, simply drop any rules you find to be too taxing and go on with your life.
D20 is an intricate system that's is not so easy to modify without affecting the whole game. For instance (I'm referring to a nearby post), if you find fighters power attacking with 2hd swords overpowered and nerf them, then you'll have to nerf also sneak attacks which will become in turn too much overpowered, and so on. It never ends and you'll have to rewrite the whole game...
On the other hand, this is a gaming forum and it seems natural to me to talk of the things I like or dislike in the game. The debate may seem too passionate sometimes, but I bet it must come from the fact most of us are passionate people that want what they feel best for the game.
On the other hand, this is a gaming forum and it seems natural to me to talk of the things I like or dislike in the game. The debate may seem too passionate sometimes, but I bet it must come from the fact most of us are passionate people that want what they feel best for the game.
That about sums it up for me.
4e is just the hybrid between a role-playing game and the MMO WotC will develop to take its place. 4e is just training players to a system of mechanics for a smoother transition to the more profitable MMO they will one day be pushing.
Ultimately, I think 2 thinks are pulling me back to Conan & d20:
1) The 4e group I play in is a bunch of number-crunching power-gamers who tweak their characters to the max...which is why they baulked and ruffled when they sat in on my old Conan game.
2) I like the details, I like slipping into the skin of the character. 4e says crams the details into an "abstract" and the mechanics dictate playing the numbers on the character sheet instead of developing a personality.
rabindranath72
Mongoose
Oh I agree with you; I do not like any of them at all, and I am a mathematician and statistician by tradeLilithsThrall said:
But you can see that many of the more obtuse parts of 3.x have been hugely simplified in 4e, e.g.: unarmed combat, mounted combat, number of modifiers which enter into combat etc. What 4e made more complex is the variety of tactical positioning; at least now the complexity has a "visual representation", whereas in 3.x there is lots of complexity for a "small return" in terms of tactical variability. That's why I prefer abstract systems with few modifiers overall. There is no point in adding tens of modifiers, if the end result is always somewhat tactically "stationary".
LilithsThrall said:
I don't see that you have. When I complain about class imbalance, I have an alternative to compare to justify why I'm complaining. You are just saying something sucks without putting it into any context.
I attempted to add some context above for where I could guess what you have a problem with. But, really, it comes down to "How would *you* like to see it done differently?" I really have no idea what the answer to this is.
Complain about alchemy being silver based. Well, how else would you do it? Not that I see where it matters at all as how much silver the party has is completely GM directed - give low level parties tons of silver and high level parties none. I don't want to hear from the people who say this is implausible; people get rich by accident all of the time (then they tend to lose all of their money because they don't know what to do with it).
How would you change spells or spell requirements? Decrease PP costs? Increase PPs for characters? Remove requirements? Increase MABs? Etc.?
Without context, there's no such thing as good or bad. What are we comparing the sorcery rules to?
LilithsThrall
Mongoose
Ichabod said:
You asked for 'context', but I think what you really want to know is how, specifically, would I change the rules. Am I right?
To give that question justice would require it's own thread. There's a -lot- about the current Sorcery rules that needs to be fixed (not just house ruled, I didn't spend all that money for a game system that needs to be house ruled before it's playable).
But I'll give you an example - the alchemy one.
Alchemy should be based on something which all characters regardless of level have equal access to (we can rely on skill DCs required in actually making the stuff to limit who has access to it). The first thing that comes to mind which meets that criteria is fate chips, not silver. Make alchemical items cost fate chips, not silver, to create. Permanent items can require recurring fate chip costs. If you'd like, the cost can be paid for by the item's owner, not the item's creator. You can offer package deals to create low-powered items in bulk. It all can be adjusted based on how common you want such items to be.
Doing this will reduce the curve in acquiring alchemical items so that low level characters will have more and high powered characters will have fewer. It makes it possible for a witch hanging out in Pict lands to create potions and whatnot without having a lab suitable for a king. It requires the sorcerer to make real sacrifices when deciding whether to spend fate chips on items or to spend those same fate chips on something else. It's more in tune, flavor wise, with a sorcerer pouring his magical self into an item to create it.
treeplanter
Mongoose
I can't compare 4e with Conan because 4e IS NOT a role playing game it's merely a cooperative board game with a better life span.
I'll comment this tough:
"First off let me say I was die-hard about d20 and not going over to 4e. I had a Conan game with a few role-players and we had a great time. Then I met a group of fun guys, but they were power-gamers...who showed me just how unbalanced and breakable they could make d20. Which made it un-fun trying to battle their broken combo characters."
Have your power-gamers go to jail withouth all their beautiful weaponry that make all their feat and power totally useless just to see if they can make a good combo with their bare hand!
THAT IS CONAN!!
I'll comment this tough:
"First off let me say I was die-hard about d20 and not going over to 4e. I had a Conan game with a few role-players and we had a great time. Then I met a group of fun guys, but they were power-gamers...who showed me just how unbalanced and breakable they could make d20. Which made it un-fun trying to battle their broken combo characters."
Have your power-gamers go to jail withouth all their beautiful weaponry that make all their feat and power totally useless just to see if they can make a good combo with their bare hand!
THAT IS CONAN!!
rabindranath72
Mongoose
I am just saying that it's not a bad system, per se. Obviously if you want to play "truer" sorcery within an Hyborian Age context, probably you should look elsewhere which is not d20, like the old TSR Conan game. Which also means that sorcery would mostly be off-limits for PCs.LilithsThrall said:
rabindranath72
Mongoose
I suppose you have played 4e? The same old trite Role vs. Roll playing, of which all the old-schoolers accuse the d20 players (which includes d20 Conan).treeplanter said:
Well, when I read in the d20 Conan manual that "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack" or that "Two kinds of actions can provoke attacks of opportunity: moving out of a threatened square and performing a particular action within a threatened square."; well, I cannot figure why also this is not to be considered a board game, in which you move your pieces on the board, count the squares etc.
Yet, I consider 3.5 and d20 Conan roleplaying games. Why? Because RPGing is independent of rules. I do not know you, but I roleplayed with Risus, Rolemaster, Hero Quest (yes, the boardgame!) and with 4e. The amount of roleplaying you are going to put into a game is completely independent of the rules.
This said, I do not like both 3.5 and 4e, though for simple rules bloat, I dislike 3.5 (i.e. d20 Conan) more.
But I love the Conan setting, and played in it using all sorts of rules systems.
Exactly. You can complain about the rule systems not functioning, but calling something "not a roleplaying game" is just elitism. Roleplaying is inherently systemless.
Of course, 4e does streamline the character types you can create, but it has no influence whatver on their personality.
