Basic Fantasy RPG Forums

Actually, you get higher total levels, but lower actual MU levels following a halvsies table - you are somewhere between 5 and 6 for a straight MU, but only at 3 in MU. I think you'd need to fiddle with it and see how the power stacks up - is high table to strict, or mid-table too generous. A 5/5 MU split is a level 10 character (Name level!) who just got Fireball, while his full-class compatriot can toss almost three times as many spells - and some significantly more powerful ones to boot.

SmootRK wrote:I will just stand by my comment that there are much easier ways to make these options available and viable for a game than a complete overhaul of the game itself. Unified mechanics may seem logical or elegant, but I have found over time that the quirks of not-so-perfectly fit together mechanics do not detract, but rather add to the experience of the game.

I love having loads of options for players and their characters... which is why I have produced several supplements to explore such things. In the end, all my supplemental materials are designed to fit into the core rules with little or no modification of the rules themselves.

Complete overhaul? A lot of this is just swapping out parts that are compatible with the same engine, to see how far we can take it without the whole thing flying apart. See, they drilled this transmission to fit the block! Crank up the nitro, hit the afterburner, and play the F Major!

Sometimes, it's just fun to tinker. Take the basic game, see what else you tweak, and see if it plays. It might not play the same, but if the result is playable, and fits what you want to do, more power to you.

I don't understand...

Update:

I do understand. Altho avging values will create far lower exp thresholds (such as a magic-user/thief) , and having to keep track of two levels (altho not that hard) it prolly will work to better represent pathfinder. Alternate between levels. I'll make a chart.

Okay, after much discussion, here's a proposed new system. It's not better or worse than the BFRPG original way of doing things. Just different. Gives different results. Ends up giving weaker Spells and HP than a normal combo class, but more powerful Combat Stats and Saves.

Pasted into original post on 1st page

Just ran some numbers - make sure you only count one set of level one numbers (so that 2nd level or 1st level in the 2nd class does not add to BAB & saves), otherwise the numbers get off track. This is especially the case for the fighter/thief and fighter/cleric: double-counting the first level keeps them at or above the BAB of a fighter of equal XP, and lands you with a final BAB of +11. Saves are more obvious here - it's pretty clear from the start that you can't stack the level one adjustments.

I'm focusing a bit on Fighter/Thief, as this the fastest fighter combo (and if something's gonna break, it'll be at high speed). HP/level: for F/T, they will on average be behind a fighter of equal level, but will be ahead of a fighter with equal XP until 4 or 5, depending on if they start on a fighter or thief HD. I haven't explored clerics, but I suspect something similar. I'm not sure how much of an issue this would be for folks. Using the more draconian highest XP table would avoid the prolonged faster HP issue.

You may want to fiddle with skills some more. 20th level bonuses don't have a lot of weight. I'm also not sure how Class Bonus and Class Skill Bonus differ.

Thx for the info. I'll update it. I think to avoid large copy and pastes, that I'll just update the 1st page post. So what I don't get is that a lvl 2 (1,1) doesn't gain any bab, or cumulative saves, but does get hp. Just seems weird that gaining the hp doesn't throw anything off.

I looked at d20 srd. Unearthed arcana has stuff on damage protection. The monster srd shows whether the ac bonus was because of dex or natural armor (one only needs to base the pathfinder defense off of touch ac plus shield bonus. Any remainder ac can go to dp).

Example: ac - touch - shield bonus= dp.
Defense = touch ac + shield bonus

But for all intents and purposes, I think my simpler system should b fine. However, preference seems to be towards natural armor vs dex bonus in the srd.

Unearthed also had stuff about a small bonus to defense (ac) as well as damage protection for armor, as a poster said armor should do since the shield was doing it. I disagree. I only included the shield cuz that's what pathfinder did. However, its there. Its almost a 1:1 for ac bonus to dp gain.
Its basically: armor class-11=a. A/2 = b. Defense = 11 + dex bonus + b; dp = b (plus the 1/5 levels).

I also noticed unearthed arcana had a really inbalanced defense system (a level 1 in each of the four classes that gained bonus could get a +15 ac). But its similar to the +1/5hd for dp, but rather for defense. Its not cumulative w ac/defense, but I like the idea. The unearthed arcana was closer to a ratio of +1/2 levels. I was thinking it makes more sense for a pc to be able to dodge more, not absorb more damage as he goes up in level.

What do you guys think about a +1/5 levels defense bonus for magic users, 1/4 for thieves/clerics, 1/3 for fighters. I could do a 1/4 for monster hd as well. This is of course using the damage protection system. Although, at this point, the whole concept might get a big convoluted, but it could all be done before gameplay.

thistleknot, lemme axe you something... have you tried the game in vanilla form yet?

Seriously. It was designed to reproduce a style of play that may well predate you, and that you may not be familiar with. It's worth understanding it, at least; you can always add stuff on later.

It's a game where death comes swiftly to those who are unprepared or cocky. Where every encounter is not guaranteed to be winnable with combat. It teaches players to play smart, or get used to rolling up characters.

I've played original d&d red book. I was expecting this to be more d20 basic version, but I'm finding its d20 morphed to be a representation of original d&d. I'm getting a grasp on the rules b4 I hope to start a campaign w a retirement community. No I haven't played yet. Just wanted to fire it up w tweaks in place. I'm prolly not going to go with the multi class thing I was hoping for, but might go w tweaked skills, multiple attacks, monster modified multiple attacks, more multiclasses. Ye, this game is more mortal for sure.

thistleknot wrote:I've played original d&d red book. I was expecting this to be more s20 basic version, but I'm finding its s20 morphed to be a representation of original d&d.

Ah. I see your problem.

The description of the game on the website was written as it is to, hopefully, avoid raising any "red flags" that might call down the wrath of Hasbro on me. Remember, when I released BFRPG, there was no such thing as an OSR movement... C&C was the closest thing.

learned new terms, c&c (castles & crusades) and OSR (old school renaissance).

2-2-2012, updated first post with latest revisions