Core Rules Errata

[Joe the Rat]

Differences in activity and approach would suggest the Thief keep the +2hp to "outstrip the Magic-User at higher levels."
I suspect this is part of why later (some might say 'Advanced') versions expanded the hit die options.

It seems like a fairly academic point, as the Cleric and the Thief reach parity at 18, and reverse at level 19. Depending on how closely you want to hew to the old progressions, the +2 for Clerics would be consistent. If you are inclined to sweat things like having an extra 10hp at max level, having a few levels of +2, or alternating between +1/+2 would settle it, although not as neatly as the consistent progression.

The other option would be to take everyone to 10hd rather than 9. keeping the progressions, Cleric and Thief averages converge right at 20. But that would be a fair-sized shift from the inspiration.

[dymondy2k]

I think the magic missile says its gonna hit unless you are in a box covered on all sides.

[Sir Bedivere]

Yeah, given the levels we're talking about, the HP question is pretty academic. Still, Solomoriah was just suggesting a high level adventure module, so maybe it's useful to hash it out.

Differences in activity and approach would suggest the Thief keep the +2hp to "outstrip the Magic-User at higher levels."

As far as activity goes: "Avoidance of honest work leads Thieves to be less hardy than the other classes ..." They get d4 to start and the cleric gets d6, which is supposed to represent how active their lifestyles are. So why do clerics and thieves switch at high levels? Does the cleric suddenly get lazy and the thief suddenly discover the value of honest labor?

If we compare XP instead of levels, after the 1250th experience point, the thief will always be at least a hit die ahead of the MU anyway, so having a +2 just to outstrip the MU doesn't seem necessary; halfway through first level he's already outstripped the MU.

Also, for a class with d4 hit dice, giving a +2 is the equivalent of giving clerics +3 and fighters +4 per level, which would seem excessive.

Anyway, those are the arguments I came up with to reduce the thief's bonus to +1, and I'm sticking to them (until Solomoriah makes a decision, of course).

[Sir Bedivere]

I think the magic missile says its gonna hit unless you are in a box covered on all sides.

So the MU doesn't even have to be able to see the target? Maybe we need to change the name to 'Magic Guided Missile'.

[SmootRK]

Yeah, given the levels we're talking about, the HP question is pretty academic. Still, Solomoriah was just suggesting a high level adventure module, so maybe it's useful to hash it out.

Differences in activity and approach would suggest the Thief keep the +2hp to "outstrip the Magic-User at higher levels."

As far as activity goes: "Avoidance of honest work leads Thieves to be less hardy than the other classes ..." They get d4 to start and the cleric gets d6, which is supposed to represent how active their lifestyles are. So why do clerics and thieves switch at high levels? Does the cleric suddenly get lazy and the thief suddenly discover the value of honest labor?

If we compare XP instead of levels, after the 1250th experience point, the thief will always be at least a hit die ahead of the MU anyway, so having a +2 just to outstrip the MU doesn't seem necessary; halfway through first level he's already outstripped the MU.

Also, for a class with d4 hit dice, giving a +2 is the equivalent of giving clerics +3 and fighters +4 per level, which would seem excessive.

Anyway, those are the arguments I came up with to reduce the thief's bonus to +1, and I'm sticking to them (until Solomoriah makes a decision, of course).

I am in agreement with this line of thinking. If the thinking process is made a little more mathematically, then we can look at the high level hp/level as 25% of base die... ie MU = +1, Thief = +1, Cleric = +2 (1.5 rounded), and Fighter = +2.

I utilize AD&D style HD (personal houserule), so I would be safe to use +1 MU (d4), +2 Thief (d6), +2 Cleric (d8), +3 Fighter (d10). Additionally, I use some additional HD types based upon races (small races use one die type smaller, and larger races use one die type larger - see New Races Supplement and Half Humans Supplement 1/2 Ogre for similar die modifications)... so having the hp/level at higher levels based upon a more stable mathematical model works well.

Anyhow, I need to incorporate these concepts into my big master HouseRule Document that I have been slowly working on (accessible through another thread here somewhere).

[Joe the Rat]

Yeah, given the levels we're talking about, the HP question is pretty academic. Still, Solomoriah was just suggesting a high level adventure module, so maybe it's useful to hash it out.

Differences in activity and approach would suggest the Thief keep the +2hp to "outstrip the Magic-User at higher levels."

As far as activity goes: "Avoidance of honest work leads Thieves to be less hardy than the other classes ..." They get d4 to start and the cleric gets d6, which is supposed to represent how active their lifestyles are. So why do clerics and thieves switch at high levels? Does the cleric suddenly get lazy and the thief suddenly discover the value of honest labor?

If we compare XP instead of levels, after the 1250th experience point, the thief will always be at least a hit die ahead of the MU anyway, so having a +2 just to outstrip the MU doesn't seem necessary; halfway through first level he's already outstripped the MU.

Also, for a class with d4 hit dice, giving a +2 is the equivalent of giving clerics +3 and fighters +4 per level, which would seem excessive.

Anyway, those are the arguments I came up with to reduce the thief's bonus to +1, and I'm sticking to them (until Solomoriah makes a decision, of course).

Well, I was going to bring up the hit points as abstraction of hardiness, luck, and the ability of experienced combatants to instinctively dodge or roll with the punches and keep serious blows from being more than a scratch - the latter traits befitting a well-seasoned Thief. They're not tough, they're wily. And yes, perhaps as they advance in rank, the church-militant Cleric becomes more church, and less militant. The body is mighty, but the reflexes may be losing some of their edge (comparatively).

...But given that hit points are not described as such (or at all) in BFRP, the rationale becomes one of personal interpretation.

[Sir Bedivere]

...But given that hit points are not described as such (or at all) in BFRP, the rationale becomes one of personal interpretation.

Agreed.

[Solomoriah]

On Magic Missile, it says:

The missile strikes unerringly, even if the target is in melee combat or has less than total cover or total concealment.

I can understand how being in melee might make it harder to hit, but having less than total cover / concealment should be easier to hit. Is the point that the target must have less than total cover / concealment?

Yeah. Badly written bit, should be fixed for any new release. Basically, you can't hit a target with a magic missile if you can't see it at all; this eliminates targets having 100% cover or concealment.

Well, I was going to bring up the hit points as abstraction of hardiness, luck, and the ability of experienced combatants to instinctively dodge or roll with the punches and keep serious blows from being more than a scratch - the latter traits befitting a well-seasoned Thief. They're not tough, they're wily. And yes, perhaps as they advance in rank, the church-militant Cleric becomes more church, and less militant. The body is mighty, but the reflexes may be losing some of their edge (comparatively).

...But given that hit points are not described as such (or at all) in BFRP, the rationale becomes one of personal interpretation.

True. However, my interpretation agrees with yours.

I made all the numeric decisions after very careful thought; some of them are as they are because that's how the game was played "back in the day," but other choices (and this is one of them) had specific rationales. Which, sadly, in some cases I don't remember so well. Joe's summation refreshed my memory on the subject.

[dymondy2k]

BUT... this is my thought on magic missile. If the mage says I am casting it at ORC #1 who is visible to the MU at the start of round, even if said orc #1 dives behind the wall the magic missile will find him. I just don't think you should be able to cast it at something you've never seen.

[Solomoriah]

Not true, dymondy2k. If the magic-user cannot see his target when he casts the spell (that is, on his initiative), then he can't hit it.

Besides, BFRPG doesn't prescribe strict beginning-of-round actions statements. I don't ask a player what his or her character is doing until his or her initiative number comes up. You can only conceive of this as a situation if you use strict action statements at the start of the round.