Basic Fantasy RPG Core Rules 3rd Edition

[Templar Si]

How about adding this example to the ability checks optional rule(which i believe was created for these times). after -seems to have no rule covering it.e.g. Eric the magic-user decides he want to sneak past the guard at the gate he is 5th level so the DM decides he should try an Ability check based on INT which luckily for Eric is 16 so he adds +2 for his INT score bonus.He rolls 10(+2) =12 the score needed was 15.The DM informs Eric he very nearly made it but at the last moment knocked over a spear lent up against the wall so intent was he on looking at the guards back.
This would give an example on how to use Ability checks and also put the idea into DM's minds that others can have a go at Thieves skills(which is a old chestnut i must agree).

[Joe the Rat]

The ability check rules currently improve with level. If your knack at doing these things "unskilled" should improve, this is good. Otherwise, I'd suggest the 1-in-x mechanic (1 in 6 / 1 in 10 / 1 in 20 / etc), modified by ability modifiers. This was another optional rule for raw ability rolls - okay, strength rolls, but it can generalize. The catch is that however you do it, I don't think a non-thief should perform better than a thief of equal level.

[Dimirag]

Hyway got me right, sorry for the confusing writing. My GM its the kind of guy that says "your not that type of character so you can't try to do it" to a player whose MU is trying to climb a window.Even with some existent rule he prefers to ignore it and say that, that doesn't make him deserve a "don't GM" attitude, in fact he is a pretty good GM. I've been on other forums where once you said "haw about using this rule from this other RPG" you get the "go play that RPG instead" answer and I firmly believe that's not the proper attitude towards fellow gamers even if one doesn't have the same line of thinking or GM method...

Back on topic:
The corebook already make use of the 1 in X chances on a dY for search and listening, so I'll see if on the following days I can write how to move silently and climb accessible surfaces.
One question solo: When using this system, modifiers goes in the form of a +/- value or as a die shift?

[Templar Si]

The ability check rules currently improve with level. If your knack at doing these things "unskilled" should improve, this is good. Otherwise, I'd suggest the 1-in-x mechanic (1 in 6 / 1 in 10 / 1 in 20 / etc), modified by ability modifiers. This was another optional rule for raw ability rolls - okay, strength rolls, but it can generalize. The catch is that however you do it, I don't think a non-thief should perform better than a thief of equal level.

Please correct my maths if its wrong I'm no mathematician,Oh and I can't spell either
Good points I suggested the Ability roll checks as it's already there and runs at a lower BASE percentage than Thieves skills e.g. you need to be 12th level to have 45% chance at move silent(thief 5th=45% unless a thief is using the optional rule in which case it could be as high as 65%!).The trouble is the BASE % is then modified by the DM adding say INT Which then gives Eric a 35% chance(oh still lower but nearer) but then again what about situation mods which are not suggested for thief skills .
I guess I'm in the leveling camp for Ability rollls as Adventureing is a skill in it's self.

[Templar Si]

Anyhow-I've got some suggestions for the Options section(I believe this is the best way to alter the game as it leaves the base game intact).Some which I think we all do anyway???

1. First level characters should be given max HP's.

2.option for character gen-Rolls may be assigned in any order to INT,WIS etc but highest score must be assigned to class prime stat.

3.DM's may allow Dwarf/Halfling M-U's (So spell books don't work at less than 4' of the ground or what ) also I can't see how race & class can truely be seperated untill this is allowed!

4.How about letting M-U's use a sling a D4 weapon afterall,and it helps gets rid of the need for the 0 level spells which seem largely there to give the M-U something to do when he's cast his one and only spell.

[Sir Bedivere]

2.option for character gen-Rolls may be assigned in any order to INT,WIS etc but highest score must be assigned to class prime stat.

I like the first part, but I really disagree with any requirement as to which score goes where, except of course you still have to have the minimum score for the class. Sometimes you want to play a misfit character, e.g., a weak fighter who instead relies on high dexterity and missile weapons. Also, for the MU, the prime requisite doesn't give them anything very useful and they are actually a lot better off with a higher DEX or CON.

[Templar Si]

2.option for character gen-Rolls may be assigned in any order to INT,WIS etc but highest score must be assigned to class prime stat.

I like the first part, but I really disagree with any requirement as to which score goes where, except of course you still have to have the minimum score for the class. Sometimes you want to play a misfit character, e.g., a weak fighter who instead relies on high dexterity and missile weapons. Also, for the MU, the prime requisite doesn't give them anything very useful and they are actually a lot better off with a higher DEX or CON.

Well I'm acctually with you on this one,but I didn't think it would get in without a downside(sometimes I over think ) but heres hoping for just a straight resignment.

[Dimirag]

IMO initially the Ability minimum for a class represented the training years and the stereotypical character, fighters are soldiers so they train their muscles and as a result they doesn't start with a STR penalty. Wizards are bookworms with cultivated minds, etc.
Actually the Fighter is the only class that benefits from the Ability Bonus and only to some extent as any other class also benefits from the same bonus to the same mechanic.
So, here are other options:
1- Ditch any ability requirement.
1.1- Change the Ability Requirement to a Prime Ability and give it some bonus or an extra benefit. (Increase the value or the modifier)
I think that all of these alternative character creation rules should be on a separate book instead of being on the core rulebook.

[Solomoriah]

Indeed, I agree with your last sentence.

-- Thief Options give thief abilities a bonus based on ability scores, mostly Dex.
-- Magic-User and Cleric Options offer bonus spells based on prime requisite.

These are good rules, but they don't go in the Basic core rules.

[Sir Bedivere]

I have a question about the rules on language. Right now (r77), the rules state:

Characters with Intelligence of 13 or higher may choose to begin the game knowing one or more languages other than those given above; the number of additional languages that may be learned is equal to the Intelligence bonus (+1, +2, or +3).

Does this rule apply only to starting characters? Or is this a hard limit on the number of languages a character can ever learn?

If the former, it's a bit confusing and could be rewritten to make it clearer. If the latter, that seems pretty harsh. Anyone of average intelligence should be able to learn a new language, given the time, materials, instruction, etc. Naturally, this should take a lot of time, and maybe even living in a community that speaks the language for a few years, but it should be possible for most people. Consider the Europeans, for example. And think about average elves, unable to learn a new language even if they spend a century in that culture.

If it's not a hard limit, we could just say: In addition to the languages given above, characters begin the game knowing a number of additional languages equal to their intelligence bonus (+1, +2, or +3).

If it is a hard limit: In addition to the languages given above, characters may choose to begin the game knowing a number of additional languages equal to their intelligence bonus (+1, +2, or +3), or they may save one or more of any slots they have to learn a language later. Over their lifetimes, characters can only learn a number of additional languages equal to their intelligence bonus.

Or, of course, leave it the way it is and let the GM interpret is as he / she pleases.

Anyway, it's just a thought.