D&D 5E Is Conan in 5e?

[Mephista]

Conan isn't one author's work.

Which I pointed out constantly so far. Thanks for agreeing with me.

Conan is, himself, the Archetype for a trope "Conan type hero"...

Do you know who else was the archetype for Hercules the TV show? The actual myth of Heracles. The Barbarian-hero archetype is older than Conan. Its resplendant in old myths and legends around the world.

 

[aramis erak]

Which I pointed out constantly so far. Thanks for agreeing with me.
Do you know who else was the archetype for Hercules the TV show? The actual myth of Heracles. The Barbarian-hero archetype is older than Conan. Its resplendant in old myths and legends around the world.

Kevin Sorbeau quoted Conan as a basis for his interpretation in an interview. I suspect he meant the movie Conan, not the book.

 

[aramis erak]

Other way around.

Ok, but few recognize Kull, or the other REH hero who was near identical. Most recognize Conan.

 

[Wuzzard]

I think I saw Conan in the PHB. He's hiding behind a stone structure waiting to attack. He's pretty high level and stealthy so its hard to notice.

 

[Mephista]

Kevin Sorbeau quoted Conan as a basis for his interpretation in an interview. I suspect he meant the movie Conan, not the book.

The point was that Conan himself isn't the origin of the Barbarian Hero trope. Its far older than the novels or movies.

 

[devincutler]

I'd give Conan Barbarian 2 (enough to reflect his heritage, his ability to fight unarmoured, and his preternatural awareness. Reckless Attack can also simulate some of his fights.).

Then Rogue 2....to reflect his acknowledged thiefy-ness and his mobility in combat (Cunning Action).

The rest I'd say was Fighter (Champion).

I think you can pretty much simulate the Conan of the books, movies, or comics with that layout. Probably Kull as well if you gave him the Two Weapon Fighting feat (since he liked to wield 2 battle axes in the comics).

Now...Solomon Kane is different matter altogether...likely a Paladin of Vengeance?

 

[S'mon]

I'd use Berserker for loincloth-clad Marvel Comic or movie Conan. Book-Conan is more a Weaponmaster Fighter.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Other than them nerfing unarmed combat for everyone but the monk in order to ensure some kind of niche protection, I think 5e does a better job of letting a player play Conan than any other edition so far.

I can't really seriously entertain a claim like that for any character concept, not with the depth of build options 3.5 presented. Whatever all it's other flaws, 3.5 could do build-to-concept like no edition before or since.

 

[Salamandyr]

I can't really seriously entertain a claim like that for any character concept, not with the depth of build options 3.5 presented. Whatever all it's other flaws, 3.5 could do build-to-concept like no edition before or since.

3rd edition (0 or .5) was terrible at build to concept, unless the concept was a one-trick pony who is a total master at one thing and an absolute failure at anything else. Wanna knock somebody down? Better have built your character for that since level 1 in a manner that controls all your feat, stat, and class choices? What? Your characters are captured, stripped of their weapons and have to fight naked in a gladiatorial arena? Bettter hope you planned for that ahead of time or you're toast (exception made for the characers whose one trick was "total mastery of magic" which allowed them do anything).

Literary characters are competent, not just at their core schtick, but can turn their hands to anything the plot requires. 5e is the first edition that really embraces that (I'd accept the argument that 4e, before bloat could do it to).

Emulated literary characters in 3e, always required multiple classes, often resulting in a character who, in play, was an incompetent mess. In 5e, it's often possible to simulate a character with just class and background choice.

 

[Tony Vargas]

3rd edition (0 or .5) was terrible at build to concept, unless the concept was a one-trick pony who is a total master at one thing and an absolute failure at anything else. Literary characters are competent, not just at their core schtick, but can turn their hands to anything the plot requires. 5e is the first edition that really embraces that (I'd accept the argument that 4e, before bloat could do it to)

OK, if you're talking mainly about the effects of bounded accuracy, sure, the second edition to do so, then. OK, more like third, since the very earliest 0D&D, prior to the introduction of the Thief class, also had everyone in basically that same 'turn your hands to anything the plot requires' boat, by default.

Emulated literary characters in 3e, always required multiple classes.

Not /always/, no. A single-class Sorcerer probably did a better job of modeling most literary casters than any Vancian class or class-combination, for instance. Rogue, thanks to UMD, could fit the Grey Mouser pretty well, for another example. The same, though, was true of prior eds - Giants in the Earth routinely gave characters from literature/myth/fiction multiple classes, they just broke the rules to do it. 3e had good enough MCing rules, and a large enough choice of classes, feats, skills &c, to do so 'legally.' 5e MCing rules - if used - are actually a little improved, but the classes (perhaps, more importantly, sub-classes) you have to work with aren't as suited to mix & match customization.

In 5e, it's often possible to simulate a character with just class and background choice.

Evoke a concept, perhaps, particularly with a background, since that's often all the background is, a fluff description of a general concept bundled with some obvious proficiency choices and a fuzzy RP perk. 5e falls shy of 2e with it's plethora of Kits in 'Complete _____' books, that way.

For instance, in 5e you can play an Outlaw Champion Fighter with Archery Style. That certainly evokes Robin Hood, just the natural-language meaning of it does, in spades. Champion, check, he championed the poor. Fighter, check, he fought in the crusades. Archery, check, he was a legendary archer. Outlaw, check, he robbed from the rich - it's all there. But does it actually model Robin? Not so much. He'll never split an arrow to win an archery contest, lacks woodsy skills, isn't any kind of a leader, and so forth. Leveling him up doesn't help. He does more and more damage, but his accuracy never becomes that remarkable, and he can't accumulate the broad range of skills he needs to be great at. 3.5 he might need to be a Ranger3/fighter4/ScoutX, with every class/level, feat and skill rank plotted out from 1-20, and be 13th level before he starts to live up to his hype, but he can get there, even if 'there' is strictly inferior to what the Tier 1s can do.

Hey, I just said it could do build-to-concept like no other ed, not that the result would be viable. ;P