Basic Fantasy RPG Forums

An armor nerd... you shouldn't have admitted that. Now everyone will be asking YOUR advice.



So you position brigandine between chain mail and plate mail, which would be more accurately called "plate-and-mail" if we really cared about history. How does it compare for weight and cumbersomeness with the other two metal armors, in your opinion?

Understand that we must simplify these things for game purposes. Smoot has suggested changing the armor class system to one where bonuses are applied to a base of 11, rather than assigning a number to each armor type. I specifically do not want to do this. As a supplementary rule, I'd be fine with it, but I want to keep the core simple.

In fact, IMO, that's where we stay. Not that I won't keep it in mind, but for the moment, I'd like to table the discussion of adding armor types to the Core Rules. Also, I'd like to steer clear of the whip for the moment; as soon as we have a whip, someone will want rules for tripping or restraining someone with one, and there goes my plan to limit expansion of the rule set.

...

Crap, might as well just say it.

There will be an "Expanded Edition" of the Core Rules. Just not this year. I'm not even going to detail my plans for it, so don't ask. It will add races, classes, weapons, armor, spells, at least some of the combat, thief, and magic-user options, and maybe one or two other things. Without explaining any further, the "coverage target" for the Expanded Edition will be different.

Adding armor types to the BFRPG Core Rules would change the coverage target. I'm not going to do that. I'm not even sure about adding flails and morningstars... since both involve bloodletting, do I have to explain that clerics can't use them?

...

Many people write game rules as a sort of architectural activity. Add a cupola here, or an extra entrance there, or another bedroom, or a deck, or whatever... more stuff is good, right?

Writing the BFRPG rules, the thing that brought us all together here, was an act of sculpture. I can easily see the expansive, quirky castle of 1E, and the works of more modern design that are the later editions... but I started with a block of material and cut things away from it until I arrived at the indivisible core of the experience I remembered and wanted to preserve.

This is why I have repeatedly refused to add things to the Core Rules, and why it took me from August of 2008 until now to decide it's a good idea to expand it a little bit.

The Expanded Edition will have a little more elbow room, but in the end, it too will be a sculpture, with "cool" things that aren't really part of the experience cut away. It will be a game where Basic characters can walk in, jot down a few notes, and be ready for action... it will even be possible to have both rulebooks at the same table and make at least some use of the Basic book.

...

So. I'll entertain whatever suggestions you all want to make, but I wanted you all to see and understand the principles I'm trying to hold on to here. I hope this helps.

An "History Style Supplement" could be a good thing if someone ever care to do it or use that... But for the Core the armor list its good enough, there isn't really much difference beyond an extra AC point so we can save the extra space needed for other thing or just keep the book with less "bulk".

One extra thing The Cleric vs Undead Table could use a HD rating for use with other classes or undead and both the table and the Turning the Undead paragraph are on page 51, not page 50 as it says on the Table of Contents.

Hey Solo, the values of the Clerics vs Undead Table are created by you or a taken directly form another source? I'm asking this because from the "sources" I've seen the base chances are 55/45 whether on the Corerules are 40/60

Please, don't call out Table of Contents or Index issues until we hit the home straight. I'm not even going to try to get them right until we're done adding stuff and reflowing.

I'm thinking about what to do with the Turning Undead table. The difficulty of turning the undead isn't necessarily related to hit dice, which is why the current table works that way.

Ok, sorry for mentioning the Index...
Thanks for the answer.
BTW, making the table work with the HD is not a bad idea, the HD already gives a "power measurement", maybe specific undead can say that they are resistant/weak towards turning giving the value used instead of the HD

Dimirag wrote:... maybe specific undead can say that they are resistant/weak towards turning giving the value used instead of the HD

Hmm, interesting idea. Let me think that one over.

Blimey, I'm even later to this party than Other Joe. My two penneth / couple of cents, for what it's worth it...

I'm sure many of us could draw up a list of changes we would personally like to see in the 3rd Edition (Fortitude/Will/Reflex saves anyone?). But I've been around these forums for long enough to know that Solo has a pretty singular vision for this project and that 95% of such suggestions are going to be non-starters. And I respect that.

Personally, my preference for this new version would be NO new content - no races, classes, equipment, armour, weapons, spells, monsters or magic items. Let's just fix what needs to be fixed, add what needs to be added, and clarify what needs to be clarified.

If we are going to consider adding something in, let's at least remain faithful to the original inspiration behind the game. If an addition brings the game materially closer to Moldvay's and Cook's original, then sure, let's consider it. If it doesn't, let's leave it as a supplement or house rule.

(Incidentally, I do realise that this minimalist approach has as much chance of being adopted as 5 new types of armour, but I thought that as everyone else was having their say, I'd offer my opinion.)

I'm pretty close to you, actually, JoeCarr. But I am going to add some monsters, and if the guys who want additional equipment are willing to write up descriptions of said items, I'll probably add them too.

Back in the day, I had the original game and a bunch of modules, and many of the modules had monsters I wanted to use elsewhere... but because they were in modules, it was awkward to do so. Had to hand-write the stats somewhere. Sure, now you can print the page and stick it in your rulebook, but I remember all too well wishing those critters were in the main rulebook.

Some of the existing BFRPG Core Rules monsters are like that... creatures that weren't in the coverage target, but which were ones I liked to use. A few were actually original, for some definition of original, like the Hangman Tree; in fact, it got in there because I wanted them in Fortress of the Iron Duke.

And, back in the day, we were sometimes stopped short by the limited equipment list. BFRPG has a few more items than the original game did, but it's still a pretty brief list.

The point is, adding those things doesn't really change the flavor of the game, in the same way an additional race or class or specialization rule does.

I am in complete agreement with JoeCarr. Better buy some thick winter coats.

Solomoriah wrote: So you position brigandine between chain mail and plate mail, which would be more accurately called "plate-and-mail" if we really cared about history. How does it compare for weight and cumbersomeness with the other two metal armors, in your opinion?

It's actually surprisingly comfortable to wear. I'd estimate its weight as being similar to chain, but like plate, it's less cumbersome because (also like plate) the weight is distributed rather than entirely on the shoulders like chain is. Really my considered opinion is that BFRPG (and most of its antecedents) are abstracted enough that plate is an adequate representation, especially when it was worn with mail under it.

Understand that we must simplify these things for game purposes. Smoot has suggested changing the armor class system to one where bonuses are applied to a base of 11, rather than assigning a number to each armor type. I specifically do not want to do this. As a supplementary rule, I'd be fine with it, but I want to keep the core simple.

In fact, IMO, that's where we stay. Not that I won't keep it in mind, but for the moment, I'd like to table the discussion of adding armor types to the Core Rules.

Definitely preferable to me. It's not hard to abstract to light/medium/heavy the way it is, and in fact that's my usual procedure in actual play.

Also, I'd like to steer clear of the whip for the moment; as soon as we have a whip, someone will want rules for tripping or restraining someone with one, and there goes my plan to limit expansion of the rule set.

Well, my bondage-y drow priestesses and would-be Indiana Jones thieves will be let down, but no big.

Adding armor types to the BFRPG Core Rules would change the coverage target. I'm not going to do that. I'm not even sure about adding flails and morningstars... since both involve bloodletting, do I have to explain that clerics can't use them?

Morningstars, maybe, but just as with maces, historically flails were blunt as often as not.
The spikier ones are just more visually striking and thus more likely to be reproduced. Wikipedia has several photos of good historical examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Russi ... axe_14.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File: ... gancha.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File: ... bia_02.JPG
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File: ... 18_GIM.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File: ... morial.jpg
The last is Korean, but is typical of the sort of threshing tool-cum-weapon that was often employed in the west as well-- in fact I believe I remember reading that such flails were a favorite among peasants when settling matters of honor. (Having flails codified also is convenient, in my experience, if someone wants to give their monk/mystic/great way adept/whatever a pair of nunchaku or the like).

Decision's yours, of course, I'm just hoping to be helpful and informative

So. I'll entertain whatever suggestions you all want to make, but I wanted you all to see and understand the principles I'm trying to hold on to here. I hope this helps.

I definitely get it, I myself am one of those compulsive-tweak types, but I understand the value of something that doesn't need messing with to feel right.

Dimirag wrote:BTW, making the table work with the HD is not a bad idea, the HD already gives a "power measurement", maybe specific undead can say that they are resistant/weak towards turning giving the value used instead of the HD

There's two things about doing this that are interesting.
1) It makes it easier to remember how difficult it is to turn supplemental undead (such as those in the Field Guide) because one only has to know their hit die, rather than memorize the core undead they are turned as.

2) It makes it easy to extrapolate for other creatures. For example, you might let a druid make turn checks to befriend animals, or if for some reason you wanted to use BFRPG to run an Eberron campaign (and you wouldn't be the first), clerics of the Church of the Silver Flame could turn lycanthropes instead of undead.

Hywaywolf wrote:I am in complete agreement with JoeCarr. Better buy some thick winter coats.

Now I'm questioning myself .