D&D 3E/3.5 Charge!

[Orius]

It's.....not a great film. But, hey, it's Conan. And, I own it.

Yeah, it's got a lot of dumb moments. But it's more entertaining than the last film, and it kind of makes for an okay D&D movie. If my usual players hadn't seen that film, I'd rip stuff off from it.

 

[Water Bob]

Yeah, it's got a lot of dumb moments. But it's more entertaining than the last film, and it kind of makes for an okay D&D movie. If my usual players hadn't seen that film, I'd rip stuff off from it.

I actually like the 2011 Conan film. I was disappointed with it at first, mainly because I was hoping for the Conan movie to end all Conan movies--a masterpiece, or at least something as good as the Lord of the Rings movies. What I got was a summer popcorn action film. It was good. I liked it, and it's grown on me a bit. I think it is better than its contemporaries, like the remake of Clash of the Titans.

As far as the three films...

I love the original 1982 Conan The Barbarian. I think it stands the test of time. I like it more now than I did when it came out.

I like the 2011 Conan The Barbarian remake as I just described. It's OK. Was hoping for better. But, I don't hate it.

Conan The Destroyer, the Arnold sequel, has some moments that just kill it. It opens with Conan praying. Conan doesn't pray. Well, yeah, he did in the 1982 film, but he also said, "To hell with you!" if Crom is not with them for the battle. The barbarian surely doesn't pray like he did in Destroyer.

The mirror thing, with Thoth Amon, was not interesting or exciting, and the ape creature just looked so fake. It tore you out of the movie.

Malak is likeable and sometimes funny, but they needed to tone him down. He was too stupid in parts.

Conan discovers that the Palace Guard is chasing them, and in the very next scene, Conan gets drunk when they camp. Yeah, that's not Conan.

And, the Dagoth (or is it Dagon?) creature at the end, again, looked very unconvincing. It did have that Lovecraftian vibe to it, which is good. But, it was so silly looking and fake.



On the other hand, many of the set were pretty cool. The city and palace looked great. The outdoor locations were picked well. Grace Jones' portrayal of Zula was well done (though Wilt was Stilted, and the young girl very naïve--which, I guess, was the point). I really liked the set of the shrine where they found the horn. It had a good Conan feel as in many of the stories where Conan explores long, lost places. And, the Wizard battle was kinda neat.

For some reason, the wizard didn't have the same charm he did in the first film, either.

 

[Orius]

I liked the Thoth Amon bit myself, it's the sort of thing that seems to fit an old school illusionist, but if I tried that in my game, my players would likely start smashing the mirrors right away.

Conan does act kind of goofy in the movie. Like running around in the fur lined speedo the whole film. The first film was better on this account, the mail he's wearing when he first sets out to find Thulsa Doom is more typical. And he's kind of a moron too, I don't see Howard's Conan buying Bombaata's lame excuses for an instant.

Dagoth I chalk up to the limitations of special effects, makeup and costumes of the time.

Zula was interesting. Yeah, she's a nasty piece of work when she's introduced, she is a bandit after all. But there's the way she bonds with Jehnna, acting like a big sister to her as the film progresses.

Thoth Amon's illusionary castle wasn't bad either.

Another point against the film is the lack of Subotai.

 

[RangerWickett]

If you want to avoid this rules oddity, some games have two cycles of initiative. First everyone moves, then everyone acts.

Pathfinder 2e has an odd way of balancing this. You get three actions per turn, and can make multiple attacks (albeit at -5 for the second, and -10 for the third, but there's still a chance to hit). So if the barbarian moves and attacks, he has spent his turn to get in one attack. Then the pirate can make three attacks back. Being the first to engage can be disadvantageous.

An alternate rule system would nix the grid, and instead conceptualize combat areas as stages, arenas, and fields.

Stages are about 30 ft. across.
Arenas about 150 ft. across.
Fields about 800 ft. across.

Everyone in the same stage can make melee attacks against each other.
You have disadvantage on ranged attacks in the same stage (except maybe with thrown daggers).
There can be multiple stages in the same arena, and switching between them requires your action.
You can make ranged attacks against people in a different stage, with no penalty.
You can attack someone in a different arena with a ranged attack with disadvantage.
Switching between arenas takes two turns, or maybe one if you can make a check.
Fields are usually too big to matter in combat.

 

[Imaculata]

I don't see why this is difficult to explain. Combat in 3.x is turn based. In the fiction all actions are taking place roughly at the same time, and a round is just a few seconds of time. But since this is a game, someone has to go first, and that is decided by rolling initiative.

So yes, a barbarian can charge towards you and strike you before you can react. Its not that you are staring at the barbarian waiting for him to make his move; you are unprepared to fend him off. That is what flat-footed means; he catches you off guard, and you haven't yet prepared for battle.

Now if the barbarian first makes his presence known, then the pirate gets to respond, and he is no longer flat-footed.

 

[Water Bob]

I don't see why this is difficult to explain. Combat in 3.x is turn based. In the fiction all actions are taking place roughly at the same time, and a round is just a few seconds of time.

Let's say the round plays out to where the Barbarian charges the Pirate and kills the Pirate with that one blow.

You're saying that while the Barbarian is running that 60 feet the Pirate is simultaneously dying from a blow he doesn't receive until the end of the round?

Now if the barbarian first makes his presence known, then the pirate gets to respond, and he is no longer flat-footed.

So, you're saying that if the Barbarian comes out from behind the rock and stands in the path, not doing anything but staring at the Pirate. The Pirate stops walking and attempts to parley with the Barbarian blocking his path. The distance between the two is 60 feet.

The Barbarian, after a minute or so of hearing the Pirate jabber, decides to charge the Pirate--that the Pirate is not flatfooted even though he lost initiative on the first round of combat?

 

[Imaculata]

Let's say the round plays out to where the Barbarian charges the Pirate and kills the Pirate with that one blow.

You're saying that while the Barbarian is running that 60 feet the Pirate is simultaneously dying from a blow he doesn't receive until the end of the round?

You are overthinking this. The barbarian simply charges and takes a swipe in a matter of seconds, while the pirate is too late to respond. Thats it.

So, you're saying that if the Barbarian comes out from behind the rock and stands in the path, not doing anything but staring at the Pirate. The Pirate stops walking and attempts to parley with the Barbarian blocking his path. The distance between the two is 60 feet.

The Barbarian, after a minute or so of hearing the Pirate jabber, decides to charge the Pirate--that the Pirate is not flatfooted even though he lost initiative on the first round of combat?

I'm not saying anything regarding what the pirate is doing. That is up to narration. But the rules state that you are flat-footed until you have taken a combat action. Basically, the pirate could have his sword in his hand, but be unprepared for the barbarians sudden charge.

 

[Water Bob]

You are overthinking this. The barbarian simply charges and takes a swipe in a matter of seconds, while the pirate is too late to respond. Thats it.

And...during that "matter of seconds" the Pirate is doing nothing. If the Barbarian can move 60 feet during that time, the Pirate can do....?

But the rules state that you are flat-footed until you have taken a combat action. Basically, the pirate could have his sword in his hand, but be unprepared for the barbarians sudden charge.

Can't pull your weapon, either. Pulling your sword is a Move Action if 1st level, Free Action combined with a Move Action at 2nd level and above, for Pirates.

 

[Greenfield]

It's all in the presentation.

"A huge Barbarian springs from the rubble ahead and charges. He's on top of you before you can react."

As for the situation over all: In terms of general wariness, I tend to give my Pirates, er, PCs a Listen or Spot check. The rules would give one with a -5 penalty for "distracted" in the situation you describe.

Why? I mean, some would say that the Barb' was laying still under 100% cover/concealment, so there was nothing to Spot or Listen to. But he either had to make a Listen check of his own, or he had to be watching the trail. If he can see you, then there's a line of sight, so you might see him. And when he starts to move clear of the rubble, to take his position on the trail and begin his charge, he might make a noise before he comes into sight.

 

[Water Bob]

It's all in the presentation.

Agreed! Which is why I posted the thread--to see how others would sell it to their players.

As for the situation over all: In terms of general wariness, I tend to give my Pirates, er, PCs a Listen or Spot check. The rules would give one with a -5 penalty for "distracted" in the situation you describe.

The mechanics are the same whether the Pirate is aware of the Barbarian or not. The Barbarian pops out of hiding, 60 feet away. The Pirate stops in his tracks and says, "Ho, there, traveler. What be your business?"

The Barbarian answers by starting a charge. Initiative is rolled. Barbarian wins. Barbarian bowls down the Pirate after crossing 60 feet because the Pirate is flatfooted.