Basic Fantasy RPG Forums

Eh, probably not. Dungeon crawling in a PbP is a pain. I may run a voice chat game using Roll20, though. Interested?

Did some work tonight on R9, but it's not ready to show yet. I put together the lineup of monsters for the encounter tables. I think I need to come up with some sort of NPC party rule, as I have to admit the way the old game did NPCs was more than a little bit weird. I mean, can you seriously imagine putting together a party of wizards with no meat shields? I can just imagine a party of clerics or one of thieves; a party of fighters, even, makes some sense. But a group consisting exclusively of magic-users is just odd.

So that will be one of the things I hack on tomorrow. That, and getting the odds distribution right for the other encounters.

Solomoriah wrote:I mean, can you seriously imagine putting together a party of wizards with no meat shields? I can just imagine a party of clerics or one of thieves; a party of fighters, even, makes some sense. But a group consisting exclusively of magic-users is just odd.

I liked the way the game allowed for cabals of travelling wizards, whose arrogance wouldn't allow them to admit to needing meatshields.

Eh, probably not. Dungeon crawling in a PbP is a pain. I may run a voice chat game using Roll20, though. Interested?

Although tempting and fun sounding it's not something I'd have time for. Being a full time student and working to pay for it pretty much has me timeless. But, thanks a lot for the invite!

slade wrote:

Solomoriah wrote:I mean, can you seriously imagine putting together a party of wizards with no meat shields? I can just imagine a party of clerics or one of thieves; a party of fighters, even, makes some sense. But a group consisting exclusively of magic-users is just odd.

I liked the way the game allowed for cabals of travelling wizards, whose arrogance wouldn't allow them to admit to needing meatshields.

Heh. I kind of, sort of, changed my mind on this one actually. Take a look:

Announcing!

Iron Falcon Rules Release 9 -- February 18, 2015
This release includes my first cut at a set of encounter tables, and rules for NPC encounters.

http://ironfalcon.basicfantasy.org/

Announcing!

Iron Falcon Rules Release 10 -- February 19, 2015
I've added a full set of rules for Intelligent Swords in Appendix B, and added descriptions for the Carnivorous Ape and Orcs.

http://ironfalcon.basicfantasy.org/

I have a question.

In the supplement, Thieves have the same attack rolls as Clerics, and the same saving throws as Magic-Users. I'm cool with the attack rolls... it makes a clear progression from those well-trained in combat to those not really trained at all. Having Clerics and Thieves fight alike is fine with me.

But the saving throws being like Magic-Users seems odd... there is less, well, logic to it. Why would a sneaky thief who depends on dodging and hiding have the same resistances as a magician who is skilled with magic but not really adept at all that dodging and hiding business?

I know it would be a deviation from the original game, so what I'm asking here is, would it be acceptable to present a Thief-specific saving throw table? Or is that going too far?

Solomoriah wrote:I have a question.

In the supplement, Thieves have the same attack rolls as Clerics, and the same saving throws as Magic-Users. I'm cool with the attack rolls... it makes a clear progression from those well-trained in combat to those not really trained at all. Having Clerics and Thieves fight alike is fine with me.

But the saving throws being like Magic-Users seems odd... there is less, well, logic to it. Why would a sneaky thief who depends on dodging and hiding have the same resistances as a magician who is skilled with magic but not really adept at all that dodging and hiding business?

I know it would be a deviation from the original game, so what I'm asking here is, would it be acceptable to present a Thief-specific saving throw table? Or is that going too far?

Conjecture, but I would imagine that when Thief was first introduced, they simply took the shortcut of using a table that was already in use.

Others are likely to have a more purist (copy the original) attitude, but I think logic and reason for some changes would lead to a better game that rote copy without any regard for fixing things that were mostly likely oversight problems at that exact moment in time.

The thieves and clerics fighting on equal ground is one of the things that attracted me from BF and curiously the thieves and MU sharing the saving throw is one of those thing I don't like, in later editions (and in BF) they share the starting values, note that the thieves improves at the same level rate as clerics, so, to me there's a kind of relationship:
Hit Dice = Starting Saving Throws values.
Attack Progression = Saving Throw progression.

I concord with Smoot, they must have used what they had at hand before making a "combined" table as the one I mentioned above.

I just noted the ST categories have a different arrangement, this is the third arrangement I've read.

SmootRK wrote:Conjecture, but I would imagine that when Thief was first introduced, they simply took the shortcut of using a table that was already in use.

This is my theory also.

SmootRK wrote:Others are likely to have a more purist (copy the original) attitude, but I think logic and reason for some changes would lead to a better game that rote copy without any regard for fixing things that were mostly likely oversight problems at that exact moment in time.

I agree here in general, but I'm also keenly aware of the dangers of changing too much or changing things without giving them proper thought.

The Thieves deserves their own saving throw values, even if its just a row or two shifted in order.

My suggestion:
Death Ray or poison: Starts equal to MU but gets a little better (they are equally fragile but a little more physical)
Wands, Polymorph and Paralyzation: Starts as a fighter but increases more slowely.
Turn to Stone: As Cleric maybe?
Dragon Breath: Improved!
Staves and Spells: Worsened.

Something like 13-13-14-15-16 for initial values