Adventurer Conqueror King v13 Rules Discussion

Later today we’ll be uploading v13 of the rules. You can use an MS Word “compare” to find the changes; they mostly consist in making the fixes that you have all brought to my attention. Two other notable changes are the addition of the “% In Lair” data for all monsters as well as the terms of our OGL and Brand licenses.

Version 13 is now available.

I can’t find the mortal wounds table. Can someone tell me where I can find it please?

Oh, drat. The mortal wounds table is in a separate document! We’ll get that up for download ASAP.

I put it up as a separate download - you can find it alongside the main download.

very nice

a question on proficiencies (I like them I must say… I love that the game is Saving Throw based :slight_smile: one of my pet peeves):
a) if you don’t have a proficiency can you attempt to use it (are there some that can be attempted and other that cannot be)?
b) if you have a similar profency can you attempt another one with a penalty?
c) does class profency have a bonus for character of that class?

  1. I would like to have a clear table of profency save
  2. I would like to have a -4 penalty for unknow profency and a -2 for similar one
  3. better yet (one of my idea for my dnd retroclone) I would have done 5 class of profency (say: nature, athletic, knowledge, social, manuality/artisan) and have given table for each class like in saving throw associated each profency to one of this skill save and said that if you had one you would roll with no penaly for similar half penalty and for no profency full penalty (something similar to weapon profency of AD&D)

Fabio, I’m glad you like the “saving throw” mechanic we used as the core of the system.
To answer your questions:
a) If you don’t have a proficiency, you can’t attempt to use it. That said, anything and everything that a D&D character could normally do is covered under the “Adventuring” proficiency. You don’t need a proficiency to ride a horse, light a torch, sketch a crude map, rig up a tent, and so on. The proficiency system was built such that if you didn’t want to use it at all, you could ignore it, and the game just plays like old school D&D.
b) There’s no particular provision for that, but a GM could certainly permit.
c) Only classes can take a class proficiency at all, so there’s no bonus.
As far as your proposals, I’d love to hear what the other playtesters and patrons think. Do you like the proficiency system? Would you want it turned into a true “skill system”, or do you prefer it in its present light-weight form? Should there be rules added for using proficiencies you don’t have? etc.

I agree with Fabio that the proficiencies are quite pleasant. From my viewpoint having only learned 3.5, I like that there isn’t a difference between “skills” and “feats”, and it was becoming one of my hangups that skills were considered worth much less than feats.
Could it be possible to add rules for creating proficiencies be part of the Character Companion? That way, all the “so you want to deviate from the core stuff? Here’s how” will be rolled up in one book. It’s my understanding that taking a stab at creating other classes similar to the bard and assassin are detailed in the Character Companion rather than encouraged straight from the core rulebook itself.
As far as Fabio’s suggestions are concerned, it’s been my impression that more is left up to the GM’s discretion in earlier editions than later editions, so I don’t feel the need to add a mandatory -4 to attempting a proficiency. I’m OK with the GM either going for that, bumping it up to a -8, or just saying “no” to the attempt. I am, however, very interested in anything that improves the readability and comprehension of the document. More tables! Tables seem to really keep the information at a glance without necessarily negating paragraphs of text.

On Hit Points, Death and Unconsciousness -
There’s an inconsistency in the wording of what happens at O HP or lower -
In the char gen section:
‘When a character, or any other being, is reduced to 0 or fewer hit points, he has been slain.’
But then in the combat section:
‘When a creature’s hit points drop to 0 or fewer, the creature is unconscious and possibly dead.’ - calling for a roll on the Mortal Wounds table for characters.
Maybe the wording in the char gen section should be changed to say ‘he has been mortally wounded’ ?

I am all for a light system, that’s the reason I suggest an indication on using other skills (otherwise people will not try something and just look at the skill list) I would also trim down the skill list.
another question: what about weapon profency?
a request: I don’t really understand what is the skill progression can we have a table?
about DEATH and wounds:
I love it :slight_smile:

Veketshian - I (obviously) concur that there doesn’t need to be a skill/feat distinction. Rolling both up into proficiencies was my goal.
I could certainly include some notes on creating proficiencies in the Character Companion. That’s a good idea. The Character Companion does have complete rules for creating character classes - to which all of the existing classes are backwards compatible.
Regarding tables - It would be great to get suggestions on where in the text you think a table would be helpful. It sounds like Proficiencies is one area. Others?
Regarding HP - Great catch. The language under Characters is holdover from prior editions.
Fabio, regarding weapon proficiencies - There are currently not any. Characters can use the weapons that they learn to use from their class. However, there is a Cleric Class Proficiency that expands the range of permitted weapons. I could add a Thief and Mage Class Proficiency that does something similar, if there’s demand for it.

I have to make some test and read more deeply in the test… but don’t create too many proficency or too good ones, with so little profencies if there are too good ones there will be must take and this is not good
e.g. how can a mage pass on the opportunity to control undead? how can a fighter pass the possibility to make much more damage? but if there are must take it’s a problem maybe they should have a different mechanic, just my two cent :slight_smile:

a few comments on things that I like a lot
High level spells: perfect hit :slight_smile:
Formulas for items: I like it, why don’t have only formula for building magical object instead o requiring a spell? another thing is there any limit to the number of formulas that a mage can know? how much space take a formula in a grimoire?

Glad you like the “ritual spells” approach!
In the current rules, formula don’t have any limit in the grimoire. Do you think they ought to be limited?

Sorry it took a while to get back to the forums. I wanted to address the concerns about tables in ACKS to help with comprehension, but after reading the character classes a bit more in-depth, I realized that there was not really a need to expand the tables, because if I had paid more attention to the tables themselves, I would have seen that information already displayed. Hopefully, not many players will make the same mistake I did.

Is the idea for us to comment strictly on the rules themselves, or should we also be on the lookout for grammar and spelling mistakes? I’m a few pages into v13 and have already found several.

If you catch grammar and spelling mistakes, please let us know! While we tried to put the document into a readable format prior to sharing it, it’s being continuously updated and mistakes do creep in.
You can list them on this forum, or send us a redlined word doc, whatever is more convenient for you!

Out of curiosity, do you have someone lined up as the editor for ACKS? I’ve only taken a graduate-level editing course, but I’ll try to take a crack at pointing out mistakes with Word and Track Changes.

NO I don’t think that there should be a limit to formula, I would ask for formula even for item that duplicate known spells