D&D 5E Is Conan in 5e?

[Salamandyr]

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.

He'll never split an arrow to win an archery contest? Who says? That's just an attack rol against a high AC (I've run an archery contest in 5e where a character did this thanks to a really good roll). His accuracy is as remarkable as you want it to be--damage and hit roll numbers being translated into more and more precise shots.

Not having a specific "split arrow with arrow" ability doesn't mean it can't be done, it just means the ability is more abstracted. 3e was chock full of abilities like "split arrow with arrow" that meant, if you had specifically planned on having to do that, great, but if you didn't anticipate being in an archery contest, you couldn't do it at all.

Lacks woodsy skills? What's his wisdom? Is he proficient in Survival, Stealth, and Perception? If not, why not?

In 3e, if you've leveled Robin to be super good with a bow, how good is he with a quarterstaff? Or a sword? A 13th level warrior character ought to be death on two legs with any weapon, or none. In 5e he is. Sure, he's better with a bow (+2 accuracy), but he's happy to go rough and tumble with anything that comes along.

Granted, Grey Mouser, up to a point, works well with just the rogue class, thanks to weapon finesse, but Mouser doesn't rely on sneak attacks...at all. I can't recall a time in the stories he took someone out with a sneak attack. (EDIT: I just thought of one; Ill Met in Lankhmar. But then so does Fafhrd, and both could be described just as easily as an attack with surprise from stealth, no need for sneak attack dice) Rather, he's a master swordsman. In combat, he makes more sense as a fighter than a rogue. Now try giving him those thief skills in 3e with mostly fighter levels.

5e, not a problem. I've got a Paladin in my game that doubles as a rogue with no rogue levels. My own PC was a long standing fighter/rogue who I chose to make in this edition as only a fighter.

While no edition could necessarily completely emulate a fictional character, thanks to bounded accuracy and abstracted rules, 5e does it more easily, and more elegantly.

 

[Tony Vargas]

He'll never split an arrow to win an archery contest? Who says?

Bounded Accuracy. He'll win some archery contests, lose others (even against much lower-level contestants), because proficiency doesn't ever eclipse the d20, the way BAB could in 3e.

Lacks woodsy skills? What's his wisdom? Is he proficient in Survival, Stealth, and Perception? If not, why not?

Fighter and Outlaw, together, don't give him enough skill proficiency.

In 3e, if you've leveled Robin to be super good with a bow, how good is he with a quarterstaff? Or a sword?

Darn-good, thanks to high BAB.

Granted, Grey Mouser, up to a point, works well with just the rogue class, thanks to weapon finesse, but Mouser doesn't rely on sneak attacks...at all.

SA became so easy to set up that's hardly an issue. Besides, the 5e Rogue is even more dependent on SA - no iterative attacks from BAB, afterall. And, Expertise in 5e is bundled with SA, just like those 8 ranks/level of skills were in 3e.

While no edition could necessarily completely emulate a fictional character, thanks to bounded accuracy and abstracted rules, 5e does it more easily, and more elegantly.

Bounded accuracy is one of the problems. While it works neatly for modeling characters with very broad/shallow competence even at high levels (which could be an issue in 3e), it fails for those who display exceptional to superhuman ability. (Not that being able to do /either/ doesn't beat out older editions.) As long as your 3e DM didn't get it into his head to bump every DC you ever encountered to challenge optimized characters of your level (and I'm not pretending that didn't happen, a lot), though, it could do broad competence, and extraordinary skill, both.

 

[n00b f00]

I guess this example sorta cuts to what we were talking about when it comes to literary characters. I don't think Robin Hood is any more than a lvl 4 character. It's been a bit since I read one of the books, and I hardly watch the movies on the reg. But while he wins some tournies and is pretty chill with a bow. I don't imagine him shooting dragons 120 feet away, flying, in the eye, every time.

His specific tourney based skills in this system can easily be written off, to me, as double proficiency performance. That's what a +9 possibly at 4? He's going to win a lot against opponents that have a +3, which is what his opponents usually had. To me he was always better than other mundane people, not supernaturally good.

The other part of that is more meta which I think is the more important part of the discussion right. Some people think that fictional characters need to be min maxed, that way they can be as successful in a normal game as they are in a scripted story. Which to me is folly. Those characters are represented oftentimes as barely succeeding at their encounters, which to me means that they roll unusually well. Even if he makes most of his attack rolls Conan can't have 20 strength, because I don't think Conan can choke an elephant to death with his hands. I think where you fall on that divide is sorta telling of how you generally feel about this subject in a bunch of ways.

 

[S'mon]

If I was trying to build a character like Conan from Robert E Howard's stories (ignoring other versions of the character) in 5e I would use barbarian.

There is a Conan story where he briefly wears Plate armor, but finds it uncomfortable. In the next scene he is back in mail and leather. This is about the best narrative description I've seen for being proficient in Medium armor but not in Heavy.

I think d12 hit dice suits Conan better that d10. Damage reduction suits him quite well too. In the Phoenix on the Sword Conan fights a score of enemies in one fight. It mentions specifically that a man who was civilized would not have survived the encounter. And there are many other examples of his surviving encounters that would kill other men not because he was better trained or a better fighter, but because of his nature. He is a wildman trampling civilizations and ancient horrors both under his sandaled feet.

How can I word it best? Conan did not learn skills in the training yard. He learned them by surviving in the wilderness of Cimmeria. a Cimmerian was not considered men until they could snap a bullocks neck with one twist of his bare hands.

As far as Rage goes I think Conan has it, but not like a normal man has anger. It's more like the rage of a bear or Tiger fighting for survival. Pure survival instinct. So a totem warrior would work fine, just remove the animal spirit fluff and leave behind the animal prowess.

Berserker would work to but the fluff is also wrong. Conan never really loses his mind. That's bad for survival, but the idea of him getting a bonus action attack because he is able to swing his weapon faster than normal men works fine. Retaliation is a good fit for Conan as well. I'm not sure about mindless rage. I can't remember Conan having his mind taken over in any of the Howard stories. I do remember a Sorceress mucking with it in one of the Robert Jordan novels, but that was just to direct his infamous lust in her direction.

The one Mechanical bit of Berserker that doesn't fit is the exhaustion from frenzy. Swinging a sword or axe does not tire Conan of Cimmeria.

In summary I find the Barbarian to be the best base class to fit Conan, though no current subclass fits him well. The Champion Subclass on the Barbarian class would work well I think.

As far as a rogue dip? there is little to gain there beyond some expertise. To my Knowledge, Conan never uses anything like thieves tools. No lockpicks, no trap probes etc. That he was a thief is not in doubt, but he accomplished this as a stealthy man of the wilds not a cat burglar.

To pick up the extra skills and languages, just spend the 250 days of downtime necessary to learn one at a time. Conan's stories cover a lot of time in a lot of countries. For a head start the Outlander background has one extra language, and V human one extra skill (I'd go stealth) Tiger totem grants other relevant skill proficiency as well.

I quite like Conan and would enjoy playing a character based on him. I'd probably go Vhuman outlander barbarian. Straight Tiger Totem abilities. Refluff the knowledge gained from the totem rituals as remembering encounters from your Cimmerian youth or wisdom from the Cimmerian elders. Lucky feat to start (Heroes from Novels are so damned lucky.) Max Str, Dex to 14, and a high Con. No negatives in any mental Stat, but mechanically they don't need to be super high. It would help to roll high stats (you probably can't survive a Cimmerian childhood without high stats).

Then crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women.

This is a good analysis. I agree that for 5e he works fine as single-class Barbarian. He's not a Berserker (Slaine the Warped Warrior from 2000AD comic is a Berserker) and I think Tiger totem works well considering how often he's described as 'Pantherish'.

For book-Conan his stat array should really be such that while he can fight unarmoured, he'll take a breastplate when available - STR 18 DEX 14 CON 14 would work, giving AC 14 unarmoured, AC 15 in chain shirt, and AC 16 in breastplate.

Comic-book or Conan the Destroyer Conan would likely have CON 18, for fighting in nothing but a loincloth and baby oil.

 

[S'mon]

I guess this example sorta cuts to what we were talking about when it comes to literary characters. I don't think Robin Hood is any more than a lvl 4 character. It's been a bit since I read one of the books, and I hardly watch the movies on the reg. But while he wins some tournies and is pretty chill with a bow. I don't imagine him shooting dragons 120 feet away, flying, in the eye, every time.

His specific tourney based skills in this system can easily be written off, to me, as double proficiency performance. That's what a +9 possibly at 4? He's going to win a lot against opponents that have a +3, which is what his opponents usually had. To me he was always better than other mundane people, not supernaturally good.

The other part of that is more meta which I think is the more important part of the discussion right. Some people think that fictional characters need to be min maxed, that way they can be as successful in a normal game as they are in a scripted story. Which to me is folly. Those characters are represented oftentimes as barely succeeding at their encounters, which to me means that they roll unusually well. Even if he makes most of his attack rolls Conan can't have 20 strength, because I don't think Conan can choke an elephant to death with his hands. I think where you fall on that divide is sorta telling of how you generally feel about this subject in a bunch of ways.

I agree strongly with your general points, but STR 20 is just 'human maximum' and does
not in itself indicate you can choke an elephant to death. I wouldn't give Conan more than STR 18 in most of his stories, but 20 is not that outrageous. He's clearly not a 20th level Barbarian with
STR 24, though.

 

[Azurewraith]

This is a good analysis. I agree that for 5e he works fine as single-class Barbarian. He's not a Berserker (Slaine the Warped Warrior from 2000AD comic is a Berserker) and I think Tiger totem works well considering how often he's described as 'Pantherish'.

For book-Conan his stat array should really be such that while he can fight unarmoured, he'll take a breastplate when available - STR 18 DEX 14 CON 14 would work, giving AC 14 unarmoured, AC 15 in chain shirt, and AC 16 in breastplate.

Comic-book or Conan the Destroyer Conan would likely have CON 18, for fighting in nothing but a loincloth and baby oil.

Baby oil is +8 AC fyi

 

[n00b f00]

It is the maximum for normal mortals in the game. Though when I look at the creatures who have those stats I always sorta felt like that was significantly stronger than any real life human. A 10 foot tall ogre being a 19. I guess after 16 which I see has the strongest a real life person is likely to get, it's in the eye of older how narratively strong that is. Whether it's running through brick walls or throwing something really heavy over their head or wrestling with bulls or putting an elephant in a head lock. 18 or 20 isn't much of a stretch, just different perspectives on different stories.

 

[Beleriphon]

Baby oil is +8 AC fyi

Only if your character waxes his chest first.

 

[BookBarbarian]

It is the maximum for normal mortals in the game. Though when I look at the creatures who have those stats I always sorta felt like that was significantly stronger than any real life human. A 10 foot tall ogre being a 19. I guess after 16 which I see has the strongest a real life person is likely to get, it's in the eye of older how narratively strong that is. Whether it's running through brick walls or throwing something really heavy over their head or wrestling with bulls or putting an elephant in a head lock. 18 or 20 isn't much of a stretch, just different perspectives on different stories.

I see your point, but remember creatures may have the same strength score, but that score means different things to the different size categories. A large size Ogre with a 19 Strength can lift/pull/carry twice as much as a human/elf/dwarf with the same score and has double the damage dice. So a 19 to a human is not equivalent 19 to a brown bear as far as strength is concerned.

I also agree that 18 to 20 strength for a Conan/Beowulf/Gilgamesh type character is not too much of a stretch. In their stories they do represent the peak of human ability.

 

[n00b f00]

Yeah that's fair enough, the size rules sorta even out a bit of that. I didn't think about that.