Basic Fantasy RPG Core Rules 3rd Edition

[Solomoriah]

I think the one paragraph version of Magic-User/Thief in the Gnomes supplement is good enough for my purposes. If I do it at all.

[artikid]

In R.84 the description of the elven race does not mention the fact they are allowed to combine Magic-user and Thief classes.

[Solomoriah]

Ack. Fixed for R85, coming soon to a Downloads page near you!

[Grummore]

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.

An 'official' advanced alternative would be just too tempting, and for me would quickly become the standard rules (like AD&D did). Harder to do, but more appealing (to me, anyway), is to get as much advanced flavour into the core rules as possible with no more than an odd extra paragraph. Whether that's by house rules or by changes to the official rules doesn't matter!

Expanding multi-classing is one good way. But subclasses might be better kept as supplements available for specific settings, since only small changes are needed to the core rules to allow almost infinite customization of the four generic classes. If you added wilderness skills to the Thief class, then a thief with a wilderness specialization and high strength etc. is basically a ranger - and in alignment terms can be played as lawful good like Aragorn (or for that matter Smokey Bear, who was good at sneaking up on bad people), through to chaotic good like Robin Hood and chaotic neutral like an Australian bushranger. (For the last two, though, you have to imagine the Thief essentially as a rogue, who if strong enough will add outright robbery to their repertoire.)

You might also add just enough extra spells into the core rules to allow (but not require!) specialisation into distinct 'schools'. With a reasonable selection of nature spells a cleric can be modelled as a druid from level one. And paladins and warrior monks are just clerics with special powers of healing and combat enhancement.

[-1warrior]

That is an interesting idea. Not something I would enjoy though.

[chiisu81]

A good reason the Core rules are offered in ODT format. You're free to alter/grow/subtract/mutilate it all you want for your own personal game.

[chiisu81]

Additional artwork to be put in. They should have already emailed Solo the originals, but if not here's their reminder as well.

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=810&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=40#p38846

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=810&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=40#p39073

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=1372&st=0&sk=t&sd= ... =60#p38849

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=1372&st=0&sk=t&sd= ... =60#p38985

[Solomoriah]

I'm working my way slowly through the rules, on what should be the final layout pass, and I've discovered I can slip one more item of equipment into the list. Any suggestions?

[Templar Si]

Bandages or Lantern, Bullseye.

[Dimirag]

A healing kit, it could be the first step towards the removal of healing spells, the second one would be modifying the healing rules to accommodate for that.