Basic Fantasy RPG Forums

Dimirag wrote:Its not that I want a more elaborate system, I was merely expanding the given ideas, I'm ok with using a simplified form and creating a new Supplement.

Alright. I'm willing to keep a (simple) one as long as Solo's okay with it.

Anyone else got an opinion on the two cleave options?

Light Weapon Specialization: Able to use the DEX bonus instead of the STR one on attack rolls.

This is not necessary, the Combat Options supplement as it is right now already covers this.
Fighters and Thieves are allowed to use DEX instead of STR for light weapons.

I know, I wanted to put a different benefit but forgot to do it...

So, for the Combat Styles Supplement, do we copy the Weapon Specialization part or go with something new? I don't really to have to pinpoint to a part of other supplement and also prefer to avoid duplicating things...

Same for the two-weapon and light weapon specializations... do we copy the rules and give extra benefits? give benefits without considering the use of the Combat Options or we put the Combat Options part as the specialization benefit?

Okay,vote stands at 1 to 1 for the cleave thing. Anyone else wanna weigh in before I start consulting third parties/just going with my gut?

Dimirag wrote:So, for the Combat Styles Supplement, do we copy the Weapon Specialization part or go with something new? I don't really to have to pinpoint to a part of other supplement and also prefer to avoid duplicating things...

I think we should have:

Combat Options Supplement 1 - stuff anyone can do - critical hits, fumbles, defending, mounted combat / jousting, called shots, cleaving, weapons vs armor. (Not necessarily in that order.)


Combat Options Supplement 2 - stuff fighters can do with specialization slots

- basic weapon specialization, plus all fighting styles, which includes shield specialist, armor specialist, using shield bash, two weapon fighting, using dex instead of strength, and any others that we decide to have in there. These fighting styles are all purchased with a proficiency slot.

Dimirag wrote:Same for the two-weapon and light weapon specializations... do we copy the rules and give extra benefits? give benefits without considering the use of the Combat Options or we put the Combat Options part as the specialization benefit?

I really think two handed fighting and using dex for light weapons should be treated as specializations. But if we did want to say that any character can do these, they should go back in supplement 1, and the penalties should be reduced for someone who specializes in them, mentioned in supplement 2.

Make sense?

As for the cleave options - I'd say option 1, but specify that the creature needed to have 4HD or less, and have less HD than the character. Or something like that.

I think we should have:

Combat Options Supplement 1 - stuff anyone can do - critical hits, fumbles, defending, mounted combat / jousting, called shots, cleaving, weapons vs armor. (Not necessarily in that order.)


Combat Options Supplement 2 - stuff fighters can do with specialization slots

- basic weapon specialization, plus all fighting styles, which includes shield specialist, armor specialist, using shield bash, two weapon fighting, using dex instead of strength, and any others that we decide to have in there. These fighting styles are all purchased with a proficiency slot.



Make sense?

Yes it does, we could call supplement 2 Fighter's Options

That might not be a bad idea. Let's wait and see if it's needed though.

If the added material is basically an extended Specialization rule set, then it would be really nice to have a "Weapon Specialization" supplement, which could work alone or plug in to Combat Options. It seems a very natural arrangement, preserving the unity of the original while presenting a coherent system when they are combined, yet still being able to work alone if the other features of Combat Options aren't wanted in a given game.

I would prefer separate things in 3:
Combat Options
Fighter Options
Combat Styles

Some Combat Styles are used by non fighters (primarily the Two-Weapon Style). Putting it on a stand alone supplement with the option of incorporating it to the Combat Option (or Fighter Option if such a thing becomes a reality).

Solomoriah wrote:If the added material is basically an extended Specialization rule set, then it would be really nice to have a "Weapon Specialization" supplement, which could work alone or plug in to Combat Options. It seems a very natural arrangement, preserving the unity of the original while presenting a coherent system when they are combined, yet still being able to work alone if the other features of Combat Options aren't wanted in a given game.

That's pretty much what I was suggesting. Combat Options 1 remains to cover all basic combat mechanics not covered in core rules, except the specialization system. The second supplement (Combat Options 2, or Fighter Options, or Weapon Specialization, or whatever it's called) - covers the entire specialization system.

Seems to me that supplement 1 is mostly written, with LL carrying it at the moment. I can have a crack at drafting supplement 2, and then take suggestions, in a different thread. But, is anyone else also keen to do that? Because I don't want to end up with several iterations at the same time and I'm also happy to let someone else do it. Speaking of which...

Dimirag wrote:I would prefer separate things in 3:
Combat Options
Fighter Options
Combat Styles

If there ended up being lots of fighting styles I can see the need for a third supplement. If there are only a few, I think they should either go in the first supplement - if they are things that anyone can do - or in the second - if they require specialization slots.

What does everyone else think?