[CONAN] Have you played Conan? Would like to hear your thoughts.

[Destan]

Hi all -

My group switched from 3E to 4E and, while we love different aspects of both systems, neither really scratches the itch for us at the moment. We've looked at C&C, Pathfinder, Black Company, etc. - all of these were great in certain areas, and maybe not what we're looking for in others. Yes, we're being insufferably hard to please.

But then we started to delve into Conan d20. (The Second Edition, to be more specific.) It looks like it's exactly what we want. We'll probably do a couple tweaks (consolidate some of the skills, fix grapple, etc.), but it looks very, very promising.

We haven't played it. Just read it. Lots of games look good on paper, and don't translate well to the table. I'm wondering if any of you folks have played it. Especially those who were or are in long campaigns. How'd it hold up? How was higher level play? (That's the one major aspect that keeps us away from 3E/PF).

Did your wizard/sorc type players enjoy Conan? It's very sparse in magic (another thing we like, but some players were always the guys in pointy hats, and I'm a bit worried about 'em).

Did you have to incorporate any house rules to balance the BAB vs. Defense disparity (or other such house rules)?

Man, do I ramble. Here's the main gist:

Have you played Conan d20 and, if so, what are your thoughts on it?

Thanks!
D

 

[Brutorz Bill]

I got to play in a Conan Campaign for a bit and I must say I had a blast!
It felt like a breath of fresh air to me and the group. We had played a ton of 3.5 (4e wasn't out yet) and Conan felt and played alot differently (in a good way). In fact I found myself having to adapt my playing style a bit, the cautious barbarian didn't work, when I acted more "Conanish" things fell into place for my character. The DM used old Conan Mags for adventure ideas, showing us pictures from the magazine of what beastie we were fighting etc.
The campaign ended prematurely (due to job transfer), but I have fond memories of it for certain.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Have you played Conan d20 and, if so, what are your thoughts on it?

Yep, I've played some. Great fun! And yes, a radical change - despite some mechanical common ground - from D&D.

Pretty brutal. . . but then that's [largely] up to the DM, of course. I don't think you'll find that pro-caster types are necessarily out in the cold. 'Sorcerers' (i.e., those with any magic, but especially Scholar class characters) are actually quite powerful. If players expect to be as casual and 'autopilot' about magic as they might possibly be in D&D (some are), well, the game might not suit them I suppose. Magic isn't at 'D&D crazy' levels either, like it or lump it.

There's not much else I can think of in terms of advice or useful anecdotes, except to state the obvious: Unless you and your players are really into (or willing and able to be into) the genre, and want to experience that through a RPG, Conan: The Roleplaying Game won't appeal very much. But yeah, if they are, and they do, it's a fantastic game.

 

[GlassJaw]

Another thumbs up for Conan d20 here.

I ran a mini-campaign using the Tales of the Black Kingdoms module and everyone thoroughly enjoyed the system. I had to make some tweaks to the module itself to flesh out some plot holes but it wasn't a big deal.

Everyone really liked armor as DR and the Dodge/Parry rules. The Massive Damage rules are pretty brutal but made for some incredibly cinematic battles.

We had one Scholar in the group as well. The magic system is cool but some of the spells need the watchful eye of the GM as they can vary greatly in power.

The weakness of the system is the classes in my opinion. Some of them felt rather bland and a lot of the class abilities were duplicated between the classes (the Nomad and Borderer were extremely similar for example).

Overall, the system does a great job of capturing the feel of Howard's Conan. When we were playing, I felt that the players were constantly grabbing whatever weapons they could find and the combat rules make battles very fast and very bloody.

My ideal sword & sorcery ruleset would be a combination of Conan and Grim Tales, especially with the GT class system.

Edit: I'll also mention that we used Conan 1ed Atlantean edition. I looked at the 2ed when it came out and didn't feel there was much difference, or at least enough to justify the cost. If you are starting out though, you might as well get 2ed, although the 1ed book was full-color and a LOT nicer.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Yeah, Atlantean here as well. There are only a few small basic rules changes between that and 2e, but you get the Temptress class as well (IIRC), which is cool. However, it really does look great in full colour. Same goes for The Road of Kings (1e, not 'Return to ...' [?]) and several other sourcebooks.

I'll also have to agree with GlassJaw about a few of the classes, on second thoughts. The kinda 'Rangery' ones in particular, from memory. But, to be honest, you don't need to use all the classes anyway. One or two might well just sit there, unused, and nothing bad will come of it. IME, anyhow.

 

[Jack7]

I liked Conan, a lot. I like the fact that magic is a lot more dangerous and uncontrolled in operation and feel than in regular D&D, though less ubiquitous. I incorporated some of the ideas in the book into my own 'otherworld of non-humans.'

 

[Destan]

Thanks fellas.

Did any of you happen to use the active defense option? That is - you had target's roll 1d20 + defense instead of a static dodge/parry defense.

 

[slwoyach]

Conan is frickin awesome! There are a couple problems though. My group flat out banned crushing grip, possibly the most broken feat in d20 history with the possible exception of Swashbuckling Adventures' unarmored defense. One quibble I do have is the scholar. Thoth Amon is described as knowing hundreds of spell, but as per the Conan rules he would only know about 20. Needs more spells!

 

[Galloglaich]

People seem to like this game for much the same reasons they like Warhammer FRPG, things like an overall more 'dangerous' feel, faster more realistic and / or cinematic combat, rarer and more 'magically' unpredictable magic. This is essentially how a lot of people used to home rule DnD when I used to play as a kid.

What happened to 3.5, and even more so to 4.0, that it really became so unsuitible for playing gritty combat and low magic, setting-rich games to the extent that you have to basically write an entirely new game like Conan D20 or veer off into something enitrely seperate like Warhammer?

Why is it that DnD seems to have evolved into a game designed for only one type of play, an ultra high-magic, unrealistic / uncinematic (but still complicated) combat and essentially unkillable characters slogging through an endless level climb / power / wealth accumulation shopping trip.

G.

 

[Galloglaich]

Conan is frickin awesome! There are a couple problems though. My group flat out banned crushing grip, possibly the most broken feat in d20 history with the possible exception of Swashbuckling Adventures' unarmored defense. One quibble I do have is the scholar. Thoth Amon is described as knowing hundreds of spell, but as per the Conan rules he would only know about 20. Needs more spells!

Try borrowing a few from Ars Magica, there are an infinity of cool spells on their wiki

G.