Errata (R53 and Later)

This subforum is for discussion of the Iron Falcon Rules for Classic Fantasy Role-Playing. Maybe someday they'll have their own forum, but for now I'm keeping the discussion here.
Katkin_kalvin
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2022 9:07 am

Re: Errata (R53 and Later)

Post by Katkin_kalvin »

Solomoriah wrote: Mon Mar 21, 2022 4:46 pm
You point out accurately the features of the original game; note, however, that in that game the rules do not say that a thief may use any magical weapon, nor do they say that the thief may not, leaving the final rule vague and thus inviting referee interpretation. My rules in IF nail this down slightly more with the "in general" bit, but it is still left to the referee's interpretation. Your rule nails this down even more than my text does (in fact, it's nailed rather tightly).
My rule does nail it down very tightly. It is also the rule *as written* in the original game (page 4, Supplement I). So, the original game explicitly states that thieves may only use magical swords and daggers and may *not* use any other magical weapons.
Katkin_kalvin wrote: Mon Mar 21, 2022 11:13 am 2. There don't seem to be any rules for human dual classing. Was that an intentional omission?
As far as I can verify (having just now re-read the old game texts), the original game from 1975 did not offer such rules.
[/quote]

The original game did offer such rules but doesn't call it "dual classing". There is a short paragraph on page 10 of Vol. I titled "Changing Character Classes".

--- Joan
Last edited by Katkin_kalvin on Mon Mar 21, 2022 5:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Katkin_kalvin
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2022 9:07 am

Re: Errata (R53 and Later)

Post by Katkin_kalvin »

Solomoriah wrote: Mon Mar 21, 2022 4:50 pm Hmm. Let me state this further, having just re-read both your questions and my answers. You stated that a "not unreasonable argument may be made" in the case of clerical spellbooks; in general, I tried to avoid that rabbit hole, preferring to leave these things uncodified. If an argument may be made, I'm not interested in either entertaining the argument in the rulebook or in codifying any decision that might be the result of such an argument. I did write some things down that I felt were common interpretations that modern players might not understand were a "thing" back then, but I tried not to do too much of that.
Fair enough, as I said before it isn't an important issue.

But I will argue that points 1. and 2. are actually in the original rules... 😁

--- Joan
User avatar
Solomoriah
Site Admin
Posts: 12453
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: LaBelle, Missouri
Contact:

Re: Errata (R53 and Later)

Post by Solomoriah »

Hmm. So I must admit, with respect to thief magic weapons, you were correct. I am disinclined to change it, though I must admit it's a personal preference rather than anything canonical. Your original argument above did not mention this specific rule and I absolutely had forgotten it.

With respect to the question of dual classing, having re-read the official rule I realize I did not include the option because (a) it was actually discouraged, and (b) more importantly it was insufficiently detailed to actually use. The rule from 1E is absolutely usable (and I have played such a character) but I would have had to choose between including a rule too vague to use OR incorporating elements from the later game. As I recall, this is not the only place I made the choice to omit excessively vague options.

I got close here. Way closer than I would have dared in 2006 when I wrote Basic Fantasy RPG. But some things had to be different, and choosing to omit overly vague options was an obvious part of the strategy.
My personal site: www.gonnerman.org
Katkin_kalvin
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2022 9:07 am

Re: Errata (R53 and Later)

Post by Katkin_kalvin »

Solomoriah wrote: Mon Mar 21, 2022 9:28 pm Hmm. So I must admit, with respect to thief magic weapons, you were correct. I am disinclined to change it, though I must admit it's a personal preference rather than anything canonical. Your original argument above did not mention this specific rule and I absolutely had forgotten it.
I think it is an important rule as it gives something extra to Fighters. Thieves have it pretty good as is and this is a reasonable limitation on them. It also gives a reason to multiclass as a Fighter/Thief. As written, there is very little reason to do so...
Solomoriah wrote: Mon Mar 21, 2022 9:28 pm With respect to the question of dual classing, having re-read the official rule I realize I did not include the option because (a) it was actually discouraged, and (b) more importantly it was insufficiently detailed to actually use. The rule from 1E is absolutely usable (and I have played such a character) but I would have had to choose between including a rule too vague to use OR incorporating elements from the later game. As I recall, this is not the only place I made the choice to omit excessively vague options.

I got close here. Way closer than I would have dared in 2006 when I wrote Basic Fantasy RPG. But some things had to be different, and choosing to omit overly vague options was an obvious part of the strategy.
Fair enough. While the rule seems pretty clear to me, I can see how others may not see it that way. In any case, I can understand the reasoning behind the omission.

--- Joan
Katkin_kalvin
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2022 9:07 am

Re: Errata (R53 and Later)

Post by Katkin_kalvin »

I just noticed a minor formatting error on page 15. In the Attack Matrix, starting with the number 21, the last few numbers of the first 4 lines are out of alignment with the rest of the table. I have checked this in R56, R52, and my print copy of R52. This error appears in all 3 versions and is very easy to miss.

--- Joan
User avatar
Solomoriah
Site Admin
Posts: 12453
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: LaBelle, Missouri
Contact:

Re: Errata (R53 and Later)

Post by Solomoriah »

It is indeed... you are the first to notice.

I've corrected it in my working R57 copy.
My personal site: www.gonnerman.org
User avatar
dlsellers
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed May 04, 2022 2:01 pm

Re: Errata (R53 and Later)

Post by dlsellers »

I apologize if this has been pointed out already. I skimmed through the errata threads and didn't find other references to it... but I've noticed a few capitalization inconsistencies for some terms, specifically references to ability scores and classes. Throughout the book, these are mostly capitalized, with the following exceptions. I hope this information is helpful in making this the best product it can be!

Capitalize "cleric"
- p3, 2nd paragraph (may also want to capitalize "clerical" since it is capitalized elsewhere in the book [p71])
- p6, 2nd paragraph
- p8, paragraph under "Dwarves"
- p17, multiple instances in "Turning the Undead" paragraph
- p25, 2 instances in Commune spell description
- p36, in the "blue" row in the table under the Prismatic Wall spell description
- p67, in first paragraph of Lich description
- p135, middle paragraph in right column

Capitalize "thief"
- p6-7, five instances in paragraphs under "Thieves" heading.
- p116, last line of text on the page
- p117, two instances in Luckstone description

Capitalize "charisma"
- p3, first paragraph under Charisma

Capitalize "intelligence"
- p130, first paragraph in right column
Dwayanu
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2023 10:15 pm

Re: Errata (R53 and Later)

Post by Dwayanu »

(R56)

P. 8 (Halflings)
Current: “Halflings may be either Fighters or Thieves.”

Suggestion: Add, “or may combine both classes.”

Reason: I presume this was an accidental omission.

P. 9 (Half-elves)
Current: “A half-elf may only become a cleric if …”

Suggestion: “A half-elf may become a cleric only if …”

Reason: As written, the meaning is ambiguous without the proper rule of grammar. With the proper rule, one with Wisdom 12 or less may be of any of the classes allowed; one with Wisdom 13 or greater must be a cleric, and only a cleric. I presume this was not the intent.

P. 9 (Characters With Multiple Classes)
Suggestion: Regarding hit points, add, “Keep a running total for each class.”

Reason: This may clarify how it works, for those who might be confused by classes gaining levels at different times.

Observation: Taking the highest score skews toward a slightly higher average so long as HD are tossed. (But see caveat.)

For example, a Fighter/Magic-user averages 4.8125 per combined level, versus 4.5 for a pure fighter.

This is the opposite of what the AD&D 1E method would yield, which is 4.0 for the multi class.

Caveat: I’m no mathematician, so perhaps the “separate totals” method makes a difference I’ve overlooked. Still, the chance of ending up with an especially poor sum is clearly less with best of two or three than with taking whatever comes up on a single toss.
User avatar
Solomoriah
Site Admin
Posts: 12453
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: LaBelle, Missouri
Contact:

Re: Errata (R53 and Later)

Post by Solomoriah »

Dwayanu wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 11:01 pm Observation: Taking the highest score skews toward a slightly higher average so long as HD are tossed. (But see caveat.)

For example, a Fighter/Magic-user averages 4.8125 per combined level, versus 4.5 for a pure fighter.

This is the opposite of what the AD&D 1E method would yield, which is 4.0 for the multi class.

Caveat: I’m no mathematician, so perhaps the “separate totals” method makes a difference I’ve overlooked. Still, the chance of ending up with an especially poor sum is clearly less with best of two or three than with taking whatever comes up on a single toss.
Thanks for the suggestions. I'll point out with respect to the quoted part above that I did not create this rule; this is the interpretation of the original rule devised by Gary Gygax as worked out by Simon Bull and explained to me (twice, since I'm slow and didn't get it the first time).
My personal site: www.gonnerman.org
User avatar
Boggo
Posts: 1381
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2022 7:17 pm

Re: Errata (R53 and Later)

Post by Boggo »

This is completely irrelevant, but Multi-Classing didn't actually exist in OD&D, basically Elves were able to freely swap between Fighting Man, or Magic-User at will (between adventures, Page 8 of Man and Magic under Elves) though they were allowed to both fight with weapons and armour and cast spells no matter what class was active, but they gained XP only for the one that was active, and hd appropriately as they levelled up. Greyhawk didn't change that it just added Thief or Cleric to the mix.

Multi-Classing comes from 1e AD&D as almost everyone misread Gary's somewhat confused text and was doing it that way, so that became official in AD&D but was never actually allowed by the rules in OD&D

As I said completely irrelevant info, especially as pretty much everyone misunderstood the rules to play with Multi-Classing, I just thought you might find it interesting.
No matter where you go...there you are
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests