Troll Lord Games

Dear all,

I would like your opinions on these ideas. I am thinking of running a Howard-style Sword & Sorcery campaign using C&C. I will import some elements from d20 Conan, however the setting need not necessarily be the Hyborian Age. By looking at the various literature (Howard in particular) and the d20 Conan game, I thought about these "races", i.e. humans with different backgrounds, which are however handled as races in C&C terms.

Namely:

1) Civilised humans. Standard PHB humans.

2) Barbarian humans. 1 Prime, Survival (as ranger), Track (as Ranger), Versatility (only suffer -2 penalty for nonproficient weapon use), Fearless (+2 to Charisma saves vs. fear effects).

3) Nomadic humans. 1 Prime, Survival (as ranger), Track (as Ranger), +1 to hit with a cultural weapon, Limited horsemanship (1st paragraph of the Horsemanship ability of Knights; can be applied to cultural mount, typically horse or camel).

Ideas? Comments? Thanks!

Cheers,

Antonio

Sounds good; C&C is certainly ideal for the S&S style.

Maybe throw in illiteracy for the barb/nomad, and possibly restrict which classes are available to them.

Not sure how D20 Conan does it, but I seem to recall that GURPS Conan actually broke "race" down by nationality (if you really wanted to get that detailed).

-Fox

I might go with mongoloids, if your players wouldn't find it offensive.

serleran wrote:
I might go with mongoloids, if your players wouldn't find it offensive.

This would be covered by the nomadic background, considering the mongol history.

'Tis a good idea. Another element you may want to do is pretty much make each nation a human "race". For example, Stygian humans might differ much from pictish humans. You could give out primes and specual abilities just based on the writings of Howard's different nationalities/regionalities.

-O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

rabindranath72 wrote:
This would be covered by the nomadic background, considering the mongol history.

No, not Mongol... mongoloid. As in, umm, nevermind. Looks good.

serleran wrote:
No, not Mongol... mongoloid. As in, umm, nevermind.

Formorian dwarves?

-Fox

Omote wrote:
'Tis a good idea. Another element you may want to do is pretty much make each nation a human "race". For example, Stygian humans might differ much from pictish humans. You could give out primes and specual abilities just based on the writings of Howard's different nationalities/regionalities.

-O

I like. But judging from Antonio's past works, his method allows for that with the least amount of stated crunch as possible.

Foxroe wrote:
Sounds good; C&C is certainly ideal for the S&S style.

Maybe throw in illiteracy for the barb/nomad, and possibly restrict which classes are available to them.

Not sure how D20 Conan does it, but I seem to recall that GURPS Conan actually broke "race" down by nationality (if you really wanted to get that detailed).

-Fox

Surely the classes will be somewhat restricted, though probably not that much. d20 Conan has the Nomad and Barbarian classes, which however to me seem mostly backgrounds. The C&C Barbarian is more of a berserker-type warrior, so it would be suitable as a basic warrior-type in place of the fighter, which would be found mostly in civilised nations.

About illiteracy...good idea, although I am not sure how to handle it. Perhaps a character needs to expend a "language slot" to become literate?

d20 Conan does indeed break down the races by nationalities, but if one abstracts things, then the "racial archetypes" are really few. Mostly they are distinguished by bonuses to skills, but I would avoid the micromanagement of d20 skills.

And then, if one reads Howard's tales, there is really not enough material to distinguish a Nordheimer from a Cimmerian.

In terms of Conan races, the above would read:

Barbarians: Cimmerian, Nordheimer, Himelian, Kushite, Pict

Nomad: Hyrkanian, Ghanata, Shemite

Civilised: All the Hyborian nations, Vendhyan, Zamorian, Zingaran, Stygian, Khitan

I was actually picturing it as larger than a dwarf, but humped over, so they stand shorter than a man. Great strength - low intelligence. So, more like a midget ogre?

serleran wrote:
No, not Mongol... mongoloid. As in, umm, nevermind. Looks good.

Ah ok, got it . I thought you referred to the actual cultural background (which actually gives the name to the phenotype of the genetic condition).

Anyway, it would be essentially a non-human?

Omote wrote:
'Tis a good idea. Another element you may want to do is pretty much make each nation a human "race". For example, Stygian humans might differ much from pictish humans. You could give out primes and specual abilities just based on the writings of Howard's different nationalities/regionalities.

-O

Then I would end up with d20 Conan I would avoid the micromanagement of the d20 game if at all possible.

serleran wrote:
I was actually picturing it as larger than a dwarf, but humped over, so they stand shorter than a man. Great strength - low intelligence. So, more like a midget ogre?

The Howardian Man-Ape, then. I would prefer them as NPCs/monsters.

About the classes...

I see all of them available, with the exception of the spellcasters and the paladin.

Always taking as example the d20 Conan game:

- Barbarian (the class) would be the most common warrior type among the barbarian and nomad background.

- Bards would be found among the nordic cultures, both civilised and barbaric (possibly nomadic, too?)

- Monks would be found among the civilised eastern societies (Vendhya and Khitai come to mind)

- Knights. Probably not very appropriate, except in some civilised nations which started to build a primitive chivalric code. In Hyborian nations, these would be for example Poitain (southern Aquilonian province) and Zingara.

- Rogues and Assassins. Everywhere.

- Fighters. Among civilised nations, or as "high-born" among barbarian/nomads.

- Rangers. Among civilised nations, living on the border with barbaric nations (Aquilonians on the Pictish frontier come to mind here). Probably hunter-types among barbarian and nomads.

- Sorcerer. A new class, with different roles/backgrounds. Also serve as Priests among civilised nations, as shamans in barbaric/nomadic backgrounds.

Any other ideas?

Oh, that's cool, Antonio. Just thought I'd throw it out there.

serleran wrote:
Oh, that's cool, Antonio. Just thought I'd throw it out there.

Actually, you are not that far from what is done in GURPS Conan. They allow to play man-apes, serpent men and satyrs (?!?!? surely from some lurid pastiche).

rabindranath72 wrote:
This would be covered by the nomadic background, considering the mongol history.

Yep. Asian steppe horse clans. While I loathe so-called "political correctness", because it typically obscures meaning, instead of providing accurate description, mongoloid is a pretty thoroughly discredited anthropological description, Probably best to leave that one in the past.

I know no harm was meant, it's just a word to a friend's ear on my part.

TheNewGuy
_________________

_________________

_________________
________

"But if your hand touches metal, I swear by my pretty floral bonnet, I will end you"

TheNewGuy wrote:
Yep. Asian steppe horse clans. While I loathe so-called "political correctness", because it typically obscures meaning, instead of providing accurate description, mongoloid is a pretty thoroughly discredited anthropological description, Probably best to leave that one in the past.

I know no harm was meant, it's just a word to a friend's ear on my part.

TheNewGuy

Apparently, caucasian is not offensive though. I prefer to be called European American.

Yeah, we white honkies are not all crackers from Russia, damnit. At least we're not "Aryans."

TheNewGuy wrote:
[mongoloid is a pretty thoroughly discredited anthropological description

? It's a pretty discredited medical description of people with Down's Syndrome; it's not anthropologically discredited any more than Caucasian/Caucasoid is. It just means 'people who look like people from Mongolia'. Maybe "oid" endings are grating on (post)modern sensibilities?

Edit: I see your link says "Such terms are associated with outdated notions of racial types, and so are now potentially offensive and best avoided" - it aoppears to be implying that different major population groups ("races") don't actually look different! That's pure Gramscian Marxism, ie Political Correctness. If you somehow manage to believe that, you clearly don't 'loathe political correctness'.

Edit 2: OK, I guess I myself normally use "east Asian" or "north east Asian" rather than "Mongoloid", but they mean the same thing and neither is inherently more offensive than the other; like "European" vs "Caucasian/Caucasoid".

Please, let's try to keep the thread on topic. Thanks.

Back on topic, the original post says "1 Prime". That would make these races horribly underpowered. C&C Primes are extremely powerful. For a Hyborean flavour I would give each race 1 set Prime and 2 free Primes. If this makes them slightly more powerful than civilised humans, that's entirely Howardesque.

You might also want to give stat mods; eg Mongol type nomads might get +1 CON -1 CHA, or whatever you think's appropriate. I tend not to use human race stat mods IMC; not because of Political Correctness but because it can screw with character generation in ways I don't like; the extreme case is giving human female PCs a realistic STR penalty; it basically disallows all human female warrior types or makes them hugely sub-optimal. Realistic, but not what I want in a fantasy game.

simontmn wrote:
Back on topic, the original post says "1 Prime". That would make these races horribly underpowered. C&C Primes are extremely powerful. For a Hyborean flavour I would give each race 1 set Prime and 2 free Primes. If this makes them slightly more powerful than civilised humans, that's entirely Howardesque.

You might also want to give stat mods; eg Mongol type nomads might get +1 CON -1 CHA, or whatever you think's appropriate. I tend not to use human race stat mods IMC; not because of Political Correctness but because it can screw with character generation in ways I don't like; the extreme case is giving human female PCs a realistic STR penalty; it basically disallows all human female warrior types or makes them hugely sub-optimal. Realistic, but not what I want in a fantasy game.

Actually, I think quite the opposite. In the Howard tales, Hyborians (which constitute most of the civilised races) are described in the tales as the dominating "race" due to their adaptability (hence the name Hyborian Age), so they should have something to reflect this, and Primes are a good way to do it.

In the Conan rpg, this is reflected by a wide choice of skills, and some other boons. The closer match is by allowing an extra Prime.

The other races are simply defined, rules-wise, in a way close to the C&C races, so from a "balance" point of view there should not be many problems.

I could probably reinforce the differences by also applying attribute modifiers, but since I am dealing more with cultural differences rather than "physical" ones, perhaps they are best left at the human average.

The idea of a set Prime I agree with, however.

- Barbaric and nomadic background have a set Prime, and one free Prime (for a total of three). For example, they might have to choose a mandatory Physical Prime. So, in total, they would have 3 Primes: one Physical, one due to class, another free.

- Civilised races have an additional Prime, bringing it to four, and it must be a Mental Prime. They would have 4 Primes: one Mental, one due to class and two free.

rabindranath72 wrote:
Actually, I think quite the opposite. In the Howard tales, Hyborians (which constitute most of the civilised races) are described in the tales as the dominating "race" due to their adaptability (hence the name Hyborian Age), so they should have something to reflect this, and Primes are a good way to do it.

In the Conan rpg, this is reflected by a wide choice of skills, and some other boons. The closer match is by allowing an extra Prime.

The other races are simply defined, rules-wise, in a way close to the C&C races, so from a "balance" point of view there should not be many problems.

I could probably reinforce the differences by also applying attribute modifiers, but since I am dealing more with cultural differences rather than "physical" ones, perhaps they are best left at the human average.

The idea of a set Prime I agree with, however.

- Barbaric and nomadic background have a set Prime, and one free Prime (for a total of three). For example, they might have to choose a mandatory Physical Prime. So, in total, they would have 3 Primes: one Physical, one due to class, another free.

- Civilised races have an additional Prime, bringing it to four, and it must be a Mental Prime. They would have 4 Primes: one Mental, one due to class and two free.

1. Hyboreans per REH dominate because their ancestors were barbarians and they haven't yet been fully corrupted by civilisation. But again and again in the stories he emphasises how Conan is superior to his civilised adversaries because he is a barbarian and they are civilised. OGL Conan makes Hyboreans powerful to make them a popular player choice, not because of REH; although I guess they're broadly Aryan so REH would peg them as superior to civilised non-Aryans like Stygians, Shemites et al. The clincher is REH's history in "The Hyborean Age"; where the Hyboreans are eventually conquered by the barbaric Picts. "Civilisation is unnatural, Barbarism will always triumph" is his whole point. You can choose to model that, or not.

2. Your approach to Primes sounds good and should work well. In my Wilderlands C&C game, the Conanesque Altanian Barbarians get a set STR Prime plus two other, if their class Prime is not STR then that means they only get to choose 1. Other humans use the standard rules.

simontmn wrote:
1. Hyboreans per REH dominate because their ancestors were barbarians and they haven't yet been fully corrupted by civilisation. But again and again in the stories he emphasises how Conan is superior to his civilised adversaries because he is a barbarian and they are civilised. OGL Conan makes Hyboreans powerful to make them a popular player choice, not because of REH; although I guess they're broadly Aryan so REH would peg them as superior to civilised non-Aryans like Stygians, Shemites et al. The clincher is REH's history in "The Hyborean Age"; where the Hyboreans are eventually conquered by the barbaric Picts. "Civilisation is unnatural, Barbarism will always triumph" is his whole point. You can choose to model that, or not.

2. Your approach to Primes sounds good and should work well. In my Wilderlands C&C game, the Conanesque Altanian Barbarians get a set STR Prime plus two other, if their class Prime is not STR then that means they only get to choose 1. Other humans use the standard rules.

1) I am well aware of Howard's writings. As he says in "Beyond the black river" by mouth of the borderer, "barbarism is the natural state of mankind". However, I am not going to model the "future" of the Hyborian Age (which would not be Hyborian Age anymore, anyway!). I am more interested in the period when the Hyborians are dominant and prevalent, as portrayed in d20 Conan. There is no doubt that around the time of Conan, the Hyborians and the other civilised races are dominant.

2) Interesting variant. So, they get a Prime if and only if it "matches" a class Prime. Might be useful to reinforce the archetypes. If I wanted for most barbaric and nomads to be Barbarians, then I would go with Con Prime. Thanks for the idea!

So, it seems that after all, my campaign will be set in the Hyborian Age.

Now, I have been thinking about "mixing and matching" the C&C core classes with some of the more "Howardian" ideas in the d20 Conan book. I would like to use as much as possible of the two systems, and try to go as rules-light as possible at the same time. To this end, I decided to "tweak" the C&C classes with ideas from the d20 Conan game.

Here are two "variant" classes of the fighter and rogue.

Note I assume the use of the d20 Conan weapon and armor categories.

As always, comments are welcome!!


Thief (Dexterity) [variant Rogue]

HD: d8

BtH: +1/2 levels (0, +1, +1, +2, +2 etc.)

Weapon proficiency: Simple, light and one-handed martial weapons

Armor proficiency: light

Class abilities: All rogue abilities, plus: two weapon combat, attack style, eyes of the cat, fleet-footed, trap sense, opportunist attack, poisons, sorcerous protection, evasion.
Two weapon combat: Thieves excel at fighting with two weapons. When using the two weapon fighting maneuver, their penalties are -2 with the primary hand and -5 with the off hand. The dexterity modifier to hit still applies.
Attack style: at 1st level a thief chooses a weapon with which he is proficient. Whenever he uses this weapon, he gains +1 to hit, and the following damage increases:

Back attack: the damage multiplier increases by 1: x3 at 1st level, x4 at 5th level, x5 at 9th level.

Sneak attack: +1 bonus to damage (total +5).

At 4th level and every four levels thereafter he chooses another weapon.
Eyes of the cat: At 2nd level, the thief sees more clearly in the dark than many men can in full daylight. The thief can see outdoors twice as well as ordinary humans by starlight, moonlight, torchlight or other conditions of poor illumination. The thief can even distinguish colour and detail under these low-light conditions.
Trap Sense: At 3rd level, the thief gains a +1 bonus to Dexterity saving throws made to avoid traps and a +1 AC bonus against attacks by traps. Every three levels thereafter, these bonuses increase by +1 (+2 at 6th, +3 at 9th , +4 at 12th ).
Fleet-footed: At 4th level, whenever the thief wears light or no armour and is unencumbered, his movement rate increases by 10'.
Poisons: At 8th level (as assassin).
Special ability: at 6th, 10th, and 14th level thieves choose one of the following special abilities:
Sorcerous Protection: thieves often arrange for minor magical protection, or learn to create their own defences, so as to more safely plunder cursed tombs or Stygian caravans. The thief gains a +2 bonus to all saving throws (regardless of the attribute) against spells and spell-like effects.


Evasion: if exposed to any effect that normally allows a character to attempt a Dexterity saving throw for half damage, the thief takes no damage with a successful saving throw. Evasion can only be used if the thief is wearing light or no armour.
Opportunist attack: Once per round, the thief can make a free attack against an opponent who has just been struck for damage in melee by another character.
Soldier (Strength) [variant fighter]

Class abilities: as fighter, plus: Two weapon combat, Formation combat
Two weapon combat: Soldiers excel at fighting with two weapons. When using the two weapon fighting maneuver, their penalties are -2 with the primary hand and -5 with the off hand. The dexterity modifier to hit still applies.
Formation Combat: At 3rd level the soldier learns to fight as part of a formation, rather than as an individual. He may select one of the following formations:
Heavy Cavalry: Whenever the soldier is mounted and has two mounted allies within 20 feet of him, he gains a +1 bonus to damage with any melee weapon. All three

must be mounted and in medium or heavy armour. This ability grants the benefits of the Horsemanship ability of Knights (restricted to the first paragraph describing the ability).
Heavy Infantry: Whenever the soldier has two allies adjacent to him, he gains a +1 bonus to his damage rolls with any melee weapon. All three must be on foot and in medium or heavy armour.
Light Cavalry: Whenever the soldier has two allies within 20 feet of him, he

gains a +1 bonus to all melee attack rolls. All three must be mounted and in light or no armour. This ability grants the benefits of the Horsemanship ability of Knights (restricted to the first paragraph describing the ability).
Skirmisher: Whenever the soldier has two allies within 10 feet of him, he gains a

+1 bonus to AC. All three must be on foot and in light or no armour.

The soldier may select a new formation at 7th, 11th and 15th levels. At 19th level the soldiers bonus for fighting in formation increases to +2.

The class variants are pretty mighty, compared to their standard options. Is multiclassing an option? I would assume it would have to be. I could see a Soldier/Thief X/6 being very deadly in combat. That's neat.

serleran wrote:
The class variants are pretty mighty, compared to their standard options. Is multiclassing an option? I would assume it would have to be. I could see a Soldier/Thief X/6 being very deadly in combat. That's neat.

Thanks! That is the idea. True to the Howardian canon, heroes tend to be quite eclectic. But I plan to allow multiclassing only at fixed levels, for example 3,6,9 etc.

Naturally, I have to update the EPP tables. All those goodies are not free

Ehi serl, how many XPs would you evaluate those new abilities? I am guessing something between 100 (for the mounted combat) to 200-300 for the others.

Two-Weapon Combat significantly reduces the standard penalties - I'd place it at 200 XP (effectively a 100 cost per +1.)

Attack Style is similar to Weapon Specialization, but slightly better in some respects - 350.

Eyes of the Cat is a tough call, as it does nothing "mechanical" per se... but, on a hunch, I'd go with 50.

Trap Sense, likewise, is a tough call as it simply improves what is already existing - 50.

Fleet-Footed is like Fast Movement (or whatever that ability is for the monk) but nowhere near as good - 100.

Poisons (this has been done before) - I believe it was set at 100... don't recall.

The special abilities are tough as I consider them not equal. Opportunist I find to be more powerful than Sorcerous Protection, for example. So, these have to be considered wholly - 2500 for that ability, added each time, since there is no mention of when the class has to take which, sort of like the druid's totem shape ability; this will cause an exponential leap in XP needed, or you could make three "paths" and have those who select Opportunist early cost more as that ability far outweighs the others.

Mounted Combat (restricted) is a restricted version of the Knight ability (already stated as 500 XP, by the way) so it obviously cannot cost as much - 250.

Formation Combat is another tough one, as it requires conditions to be effective, but not impossible - 400.

These are just rough guesses without referencing the previous deconstruction document or opening a book... you might find them too high, or too low. Only playtesting can set them.

Of course, these variants would have a higher XP rate than standard, but that's normal. The thief, for example, will be noticeably more "expensive" due to increased HD and added abilities.