Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="molonel" data-source="post: 1703238" data-attributes="member: 10412">Actually, I understand all that. In "The Phoenix on the Sword" the assassins who are trying to kill Conan revel in the fact that he didn't have time to don his helm. I obviously appreciate the character, otherwise I wouldn't be rereading the entire series of books for the fourth time.But the fact is, Conan was still stronger than every other living human being he ever met. There was one priest who strangled people as part of his worship, and he'd been raised strangling people his entire life, and he could snap a normal man's neck like a dry twig. After Conan snapped his neck, he thought to himself, "Wow, that guy was almost as strong as me!" And that was supposed to be considered a compliment. Toward the end of the series, Conan is still, in his sixties, faster than a rapier-wielding swashbuckler. Throughout the books, Conan is stronger than every warrior he meets, a more skilled fighter than everyone he fights, faster than any human being, tougher than any mountain stone, quieter than a ninja, and a more skilled woodsman than any native of any terrain. It's a kick ass story, and he's a kick ass character. Robert E. Howard, at the top of his game, was an extraordinary writer.But it is somewhat misleading to say, "Well, Conan didn't have a bunch of magic items!"Obviously. He didn't need them. Why would he need a Belt of Giant Strength? He was stronger than everyone already. Why would he need Gloves of Dexterity? He was already faster than everyone. Why he need an item to increase his Constitution? He was already tougher than everyone else.For those who are interested, this is the best recreation of Conan I've seen for d20, although it was for 3.0 rules:<a href="http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/hosted/adilbrand/conan.htm" target="_blank">http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/hosted/adilbrand/conan.htm</a>Now, before anyone says it, I know Mongoose has translated Hyborea into a playable game. But the problem I'm talking about is using the characters themselves as models for creating the game, rather than the worlds. And I've seen people make that mistake. Worlds like Conan d20, Midnight and d20 Testament have done extensive rewrites of the d20 system to account for low-magic worlds.Most low magic games I've seen rarely last past 4th to 6th level, because a lot of people who feel threatened or intimidated by character power rarely want to play mid- or high-level characters, anyway, and the game starts to unravel very quickly at that point if you haven't thought through the impact on the game mechanics of playing low-magic.Most campaigns are played somewhere between levels 1 and 10. Those are the most commonly played levels, and that's been confirmed through a plethora of online polls. One of the problems with D&D 3.0 was that they only really playtested levels 1 through 10 well, and that's why a large part of the perceived problems that were fixed in 3.5, like the three H's: Haste, Harm and Heal, or Time Stop, or DR, carried the largest part of their impact into higher level games.It depends on what sort of 5 or 6 party members we're talking about. Will five or six 2nd level characters be able to recreate the adventures of Conan? Sure. The early Conan. The Conan who ran from wolves, and encountered the thing in the crypt to get his first sword. But there is a translation process that needs to take place, and like any translation, often things are lost in the process.I studied medieval literature as a graduate student, and that involved delving into Anglo-Saxon archaeology. I also have a lifelong interest in reading about forging, and ancient weapons. This has resulted in creating custom forging rules, and special materials and effects uncreatable by magic alone in some of my games. I've played a character as a dwarven master smith all the way from 1st through 21st level in a 3-year campaign, and fiddled with mechanics and roleplaying scenarios as I sought mentors, forging techniques from different races (including salamanders) and skill-enhancing items.As a result, I've put a lot of work into creating alternate schemes for enhancing and creating items.Responding to what you've said, although I've seen the incredible levels of craftsmanship possible using only mundane materials in THIS world, and without the benefit of magic, I still think that having a dragon with a bite-span of several feet pick you up and try to bite through your armor would test even the best-forged chainmail links in this world. Beowulf cuts a dragon in half with a dagger, and even if you take the perspective that he was actually wielding a short sword, and delivering a coup de grace, nevertheless, the actions of many so-called low heroes in classical literature is often beyond the ken or abilities of some high-magic heroes loaded to the gills, and every magic item slot filled.I have. Still, however, all I'm trying to say is that when people argue that "Real heroes don't have a bunch of magic items to make them powerful" I think they fail to take into account the obvious quality of the gear that heroes in literature possessed. If anyone expects me to believe that Beowful was wearing a mere masterwork quality chain shirt, I'm sorry, that's going to be a rather hard sell.Nor do I think so. But then again, I've put a lot of work into develop non-magical options into the games I've played. And I think that people drastically underestimate the effects described in classical and imaginative literature when they think that all heroes walked around in standard mundane gear.If by low magic you mean no magic or mundane, I guess I can see your point. But it seems like all you're doing is flipping around the picture and looking at it from the bottom up. If you consider invisibility a high magic spell, then you're looking at it from the perspective of a very low-magic setting.I may have a particular perspective, and I freely admit that. But then again, so do you.I'm content to agree to disagree.</blockquote>

Verification