Basic Fantasy RPG Core Rules 3rd Edition

[-1warrior]

Personally, I would really like if Gnomes were put into the core. They seem to be more of a core race to me, than an extra race.

[Solomoriah]

Ack. And this is why I shouldn't have suggested it.

BFRPG has always had a "coverage target" of BX. If the 1981 rules had it, we had to have it, and if they didn't, we didn't. The only exceptions I made were dropping alignment and adding magic item creation rules; the latter was promised in BX but not delivered until BECM. Gnomes aren't in the coverage target at all. Neither are Magic-User/Thief characters, but adding that rule would take all of one short paragraph, while adding an entire race would require half a page at least, and could be argued to be a substantial change.

Moving the line even a little seems dicey. Perhaps I'd best forget the idea.

[-1warrior]

Hey, never mind. I guess I've just never been a big B/X fan. It always seemed unfinished to me. I did learn with B/X at the very beginning, but I quickly moved on to BECMI, which I greatly prefer. I consider it superior to B/X in many ways. It saddens me that all the retro clones which emulate D&D (rather than AD&D), are always modeled after RC or B/X.

I get what you're saying though. However, I think it takes away from the game if you stick too closely to B/X. It's harder to be original. I liked your original idea of the Thief/Magic-user.

Remember, this is from the guys who hates race-as-class, and has houseruled it out of every game he ran in a system where it existed.

[Solomoriah]

I hardly originated Thief/Magic-User; it's a 1E option I saw played on several occasions. I am a bit confused, though... if you liked BECMI, why don't you like RC? I'm told they're very much the same thing... was that wrong?

[-1warrior]

As far as mechanics, they are similar, but not the same (to me, they are as far apart as 1E and UA, but that's my opinion). It has more to do with the settings which were built into the game. That's another thing I'm glad BFRPG doesn't have. I like having a game system where the setting is easy to separate from the system.

Now that I think about it, I think I may have seen someone play a Magic-user/Thief once. I suppose the games I played on were different.

Well, sorry if I caused any confusion.

[vfults]

Personally, I'd like to see things like gnomes, half-elves, half-orcs, rangers, paladins, barbarians, monks and multiclass options dealt with in an in-print supplement after Core Rules 3 is released.

[Solomoriah]

If I do an "advanced" supplement, I still won't include barbarians. I've never liked the concept... what really separates a "barbarian" from a "fighter" or "ranger" is too thin in the first place, and what has been added to separate them "in game" is too much. I'd probably also omit monks... I don't find them compelling in a pseudo-European game world. If someone wanted to create an Asian-themed supplement with more in it than just monks, I could get behind that.

Illusionists, Druids, Rangers, Paladins, Assassins, Half-Humans and Gnomes, plus some of Combat and Thief options (and maybe a little bit of the Magic-User options) would comprise an "advanced" game for me.

But that's far off in the future, as far as I'm concerned. I'm focused on getting 3rd Edition and the Field Guide into print.

[-1warrior]

That sounds right to me. Actually Solo, there is one other "Asian" class which already has a supplement: Samurai. It's in the workshop.

[vfults]

Illusionists, Druids, Rangers, Paladins, Assassins, Half-Humans and Gnomes, plus some of Combat and Thief options (and maybe a little bit of the Magic-User options) would comprise an "advanced" game for me.
But that's far off in the future, as far as I'm concerned. I'm focused on getting 3rd Edition and the Field Guide into print.

Absolutely get those two out! And your list for a supplement suits my type of game perfectly.

[seandon4]

To me, the thing about BFRPG is that it is modular. It is B/X+<inserthere>. BECMI strictly speaking is B/(X)/C/M/I where the C, M and I could be dropped if so desired too and is modular in that sense as well. I do agree that BECMI is more well rounded: it gives a GM more to pull from and less need to for mental agility, but some folks prefer to attach 2e options or 1e (DMG) options instead of C/M/I; and BFRPG allows that. BFRPG also allows for making up rules as a group sees fit rather than having everything codified. For example, some folks don't like the "can copy directly from a scroll to your spellbook" rule that is in BECMI.

Having said that, I've seen several posts on DF of people saying "I wish there was a Menzter BECMI clone, I think I'm going to start one..." etc. In the mean time, I pull up my copy of the RC: it's not exactly the same as the original Mentzer companions but it's all in one pdf at least. If someone wishes to pull together an "advanced" module (like LL's AEC) that'd be neat too. My 2 cents. And happy to see v3 coming together

EDIT: Smoot's house rule document has a well defined Thief/Magic-User I believe that is compatible with BFRPG mechanics.