More Conan stuff on Conan website

More Conan stuff on Conan website

Postby Galloglaich » Fri Nov 18, 2011 7:20 pm

Galloglaich
 
Posts: 2010
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 5:30 pm

Re: More Conan stuff on Conan website

Postby Galloglaich » Sun Jan 08, 2012 5:47 pm

Galloglaich
 
Posts: 2010
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 5:30 pm

Re: More Conan stuff on Conan website

Postby Luca C. » Tue Jan 10, 2012 7:07 am

Galloglaich wrote:more Conan - Codex stuff here:

http://forum.mongoosepublishing.com/vie ... 10&t=49223

G.


I actually made criticals a bit more simplified.
Check here the post with the title: "PROPOSAL of CRITICAL RULE SET no.2 (Additive system)"

http://forum.mongoosepublishing.com/vie ... 10&t=49444

The second link indicated by Galloglaich above is for general discussion of Conan & Codex (especially regarding Onset & Melee).
Luca C.
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 7:05 am

Re: More Conan stuff on Conan website

Postby Galloglaich » Wed Jan 11, 2012 5:19 pm

Simple is generally better, I find. I'll check out the latest and let you know if I have any comments Lucas, thanks :)

G
Galloglaich
 
Posts: 2010
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 5:30 pm

Re: More Conan stuff on Conan website

Postby Luca C. » Tue Feb 14, 2012 4:15 pm

I really like the Codex but I also really like Conan rpg, even if it is not perfect.
To keep things simple (and allow more compatibility with different, old Conan products) I'm just trying to ADD things from the Codex to Conan, rather than substituting Conan stufff with Codex stuff.

A problem with Conan is the two kinds of Defence: Parry and Dodge.
I've always assumed Codex' Weapon Defense Modifier apply only to Parry, not to Dodge.
Thsi means that Dodge becomes less effective than Parry.

Here is an attempt of balancing the Dodge & Parry.

http://forum.mongoosepublishing.com/vie ... 38#p709838

Consequences of theis new rule:
1) Parry becomes more effective than Dodging (due to the weapon Parry Bonus) but risky for your weapons/shield (which risk to be broken)
2) Dodge becomes less effective than Parry, but safer for your weapons.

Do these two consequences sound realistic to you?
Luca C.
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 7:05 am

Re: More Conan stuff on Conan website

Postby Galloglaich » Tue Feb 14, 2012 4:27 pm

I think damaging shields and certain types of weapons was common historically, and I think your rule makes sense. I like the balance of it, it seems like a good rule.

Some weapons however, and some shields, were made to be basically immune from damage, which could also play a positive factor in the system since this was part of the historical 'arms race'.

So for example, most early shields were used primarily for defense against various missiles. Viiking shields were apparently quite thin and often made of linden wood. The Icelandic Sagas are full of stories of shields being cut to pieces. It was normal in most versions of the Holmgang, one type of formal Viking-era duel, for each combattant to be issued with three shields, because they were expected to be destroyed. Shields needed to be light to be carried around all day.

On the other hand shields designed for sustained heavy-combat tended to be stronger; the Hoplites Aspis shield had a bronze cover. I'm not sure how durable it was but probably much more so than the wicker pelta of the light javelin throwers!

By the Medieval period you start to see small steel bucklers. These are virtually immune to damage, except possibly from a heavy mace, flail, or war-hammer. Many were bullet proof. Still later in the Renaissance they started making all-steel shields called Rotella in the East. These were derived from bullet-proof infantry shields used by the Ottomaans.

With weapons it is similar. In early Migration era contexts for example you see a lot of wooden hafted weapons, spears, axes, maces, and hammers, which as an archeologist you know could easily be damaged from combat. These could be destroyed in parrying. By the medieval period it is very common for wooden hafted weapons of all types to have iron langets or sheathes down the haft near the business-end, this was to make it more possible to parry with the weapon without risk of damaging it. This is actually one of the ways i can identify an authentic antique from a fake, the langets are a detail that get left out by the modern or Victorian mind but are pretty consistent on Medieval and Renaissance antiques, because without them the weapon is vulnerable. You even see langets on pikes down the last foot or so, quite often.


Swords were often damaged by parries, and will incrementally be damaged regardless by use in combat (swords were really somewhat disposable weapons over time), but fencing techniques are designed to somewhat minimize the effects of contact with another weapon either offensively or defensively. You don't parry at full force edge to edge like in the movies; you try instead to make a more subtle contact, because the goal is to very very quickly guide the other guys weapon aside and flick-over it to cut or stab them with a counter-attack. I have only ever fenced with blunt swords obviously but they hold up pretty well to fencing, only very gradually getting damaged. Steel is tough stuff. A sword with a very fine edge like a katana can be more vulnerable.

Finally, weapons like maces, war hammers and axes were appearing by the late Medieval period in Europe with metal hafts. In Central Asia I think these go back to the Bronze Age, I've seen cow-headed and devil-headed maces from Persia made of Bronze though I'm not certain how old they were (bronze was used for maces well into the early-modern period)




So in a nutshell, I think it is a good idea for a rule, but you should also introduce the nuances and trade-offs of some weapons of steel or bronze construction (or reinforced by langets) which are fully or partially immune to damage, same with shields; with the tradeoff that these weapons are a little bit heavier and slower. It's the same for shields. A fully metal (iron) shield is more likely to be a buckler, because of the weight. Steel rotella became possible as steel working techniques got better allowing them to make larger, thinner tempered steel sheets. But these would be expensive and only available in a higher technology context (i.e. probably not Barbarians).

Similarly, a trained fencer might be less likely to damage their weapon than a less skilled fencer would.

We use a mechanic similar to this in the Codex as you know, whenever you get a tie-roll it's a potential for damaging the weapon. The rule I use is a hardness and hit points rating for each weapon. The hardness is like damage reduction; so a given sword might have a hardnes 6 and hit points 3. Any damage over 6 points could break the sword. An all-steel mace by contrast might have a hardness of 20, and 10 hit points. Almost impossible to break.



G
Galloglaich
 
Posts: 2010
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 5:30 pm

Re: More Conan stuff on Conan website

Postby Galloglaich » Tue Feb 14, 2012 4:33 pm

This rule, incidentally, will suddenly make weapons like maces more valuable in your game. And it will further differentiate them from swords. You don't want to try to parry a heavy mace with a light sword, that is for sure.


Here are some of those Persian maces I mentoned.

Image
Image
Image
Galloglaich
 
Posts: 2010
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 5:30 pm

Re: More Conan stuff on Conan website

Postby Luca C. » Tue Feb 14, 2012 5:28 pm

Thanks a lot!
Your data and suggestions are fantastiic.
I'm an archaeologist with an interest in weapons, but I'm just a humble "dilettante" compared to your knowledge of ancient warfare!

I'm thinking again on what you say and I'll tell you if I come out with something new.
In any case, I feel better materials will certainly affects hd & hp, e.g. hafted weapon with metal hafts should have higher HD & hp than normal axes with wooden hafts.
Your indications on Weapon materials in the "Weapons of the Ancient World" look perfect in this sense.

AGAIN ON CONAN & CODEX with my new breakage rule:
Regarding "my consequences" paragraph here (First post, just after the "Balance Rule")
http://forum.mongoosepublishing.com/vie ... 57#p709857

Do you think it is fine if I eliminate the second Dex bonus to Dodge?

Thus far, appliying the Codex to Conan meant the following:
- Weapon bonus to Atk
- Weapon bonus to Parry
- Dex bonus twice to Dodge

And everything was running smooth and balanced.

Adding my "breakage rules" will make Parry risky for your weapon.
So I removed the second Dex bonus to Dodge in order to make Parry still a viable option.
Dodge without a second Dex bonus is more vulnerable to Atk (since Atk receive weapon Onset/Melee bonuses) but Parry, even if effective (since it has the Codex weapon defence bonus) is risky for your shield/weapon.

I can imagine that "parry" and "Dodge" are simplifications from your expert point of view...but, in a nutshell, do you think that, having a more difficult Dodge than Parry is realistic?
Luca C.
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 7:05 am

Re: More Conan stuff on Conan website

Postby Galloglaich » Tue Feb 14, 2012 7:40 pm

I'm not an expert, I'm just an enthusiastic amateur. :) And a student of history, same as everyone here.

From my experience, it's generally harder to dodge than the parry when fighting with longer weapons, this is reversed with shorter ones.

But your rule seems reasonable to me, on balance. When precisely does the defending weapon or shield risk breakage?

Another way to even it out might be to just increase the defensive value of shields and certain melee weapons a little bit more. A shield provides substantial protection.

G
Galloglaich
 
Posts: 2010
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 5:30 pm

Re: More Conan stuff on Conan website

Postby Luca C. » Tue Feb 14, 2012 10:27 pm

The Weapon/Shield risks damage when a Parry Defence is not beaten, but not beaten by a certain number which is = to Weapon Defense bonus.

Example:
A soldier is parrying with large shield (+4 parry) and shimitar (+2 parry).
Parry Defence 21 (including 4 points of large shield and 2 points of weapon defence of a shimitar).

Results of the Atk roll vs Parry 21:
- 22 or more: Atk is succesfull
- 18, 19, 20, 21: Atk is not sucesfull but Shield suffer Sunder
- 16, 17: Atk is not sucesfull but Shimitar suffer Sunder
- 15 or less Atk is not succesfull and no Sunder is suffering

It is worth reminding that "Sunder" does not mean automatic destruction.
Scimitar has hd 10, hp 4 = difficult to damage
Large Shield has hd 6, hp 10. = easy to damage, but there's a lot of hp.
It is also worth reminding that objects do not suffer critical damage.


ON BALANCE
With my old set of "Codexised Conan" rules the attacks stats were all balanaced as follows:
Atk rolll: as in Conan rpg + Weapon (Onset/Melee) Bonus
Parry Defence: as in Conan rpg + Weapon Defense Bonus
Dodge Defence: as in Conan rpg + Dex bonus added a second time

It is clear that everything looks balanced since every old stat has received only 1 new bonus.

HOWEVER, adding the "weapon Breakage" makes Parry a bit less advantageous than Dodging.
This is the reason why I eliminated the repeated Dex bonus to Dodge.
So in this new version we get:

Atk rolll: as in Conan rpg + Weapon (Onset/Melee) Bonus
Parry Defence: as in Conan rpg + Weapon Defense Bonus
Dodge Defence: as in Conan rpg + NOTHING

Dodge defense becomes easier to hit by an atk roll with Weapon Onset/Melee bonus than Parry defence...but your weapon is safe!!

I feel the whole system adds another level of tactical choices in melee when you must choose between Dodge & Parry.

Another way to even it out might be to just increase the defensive value of shields and certain melee weapons a little bit more. A shield provides substantial protection.


I'm not sure about it.
Parry Defence tends to be already (relatively) quite high since this Defence receives bonuses from both Shield and Weapon defences, while the other Defense, the Dodge, does not receive any other bonus.
Luca C.
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 7:05 am

Next

Return to Conan RPG

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron