|
|
Post by Marcia B. on Apr 12, 2023 20:38:21 GMT -6
What about adding the Balor as a possible Orc leader?
Great project, BTW.
Does LULU have an 8.5x8.5?
Thank you!  I wouldn’t add the balor as an orc leader unless it was in the original print; and it might be! I only have access to the monster stats themselves. But FMC isn’t meant to modify the original ruleset in any case. |
|
|
|
Post by Marcia B. on Apr 12, 2023 20:40:58 GMT -6
I absolutely cannot come close to controlling your project, but may I humbly suggest a thief class as if it was there at the start, that is, a “white box thief” at least as an addendum or appendix, etc (since the class is so iconic, at least). If you philosophically disagree, I get it, so no worries. Heh. I’ve already included the thief in a second appendix, along with other additional rules! I talk about it in a blog post, but to summarize: I don’t mind including these optional rules since I think they illustrate how the game evolved over time, but they’re included separately from the main body of the text to avoid confusion and preferential treatment. traversefantasy.blogspot.com/2023/02/fmc-appendix-b-optional-rules.html |
|
|
|
Post by Marcia B. on Apr 12, 2023 20:46:07 GMT -6
The only change I would recommend is to change the 'Modern Combat' AC's to the more modern equivalent for player familiarity. 20-Descending AC = Modern AC. This changes nothing really except the AC of Leather goes to 13, and a player has a 50% chance of hitting an unarmored opponent instead of 55%. Then the bonus to hit increases by 1 for each level area i.e. Fighter, Cleric, M-U levels 1-3,1-4,1-5 have a +1 to hit. This also gives them the added benefit of feeling like they get a modifier. It's easier to sell to modern players. "All AC are the same except leather which is boosted to 13. Roll to hit armor class, and add bonuses in.". It also dovetails with Beta-D&D with a Target-20 type system. BFRPG gets this exactly right. Just my copper's worth. I haven’t seen ascending AC formatted that way before; usually seen base AC as even numbers starting from 10 up to 16, such as in OSE. I think it would also result in some confusion since there is never a case where one would roll against AC unmodified: both level 1 PCs and HD 1 monsters would add +1 to their attack rolls. As a matter of convention and straightforward math equivalence, I’d prefer to keep it as is. |
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Apr 12, 2023 22:38:50 GMT -6
I like how you formatted the Weapons vs. Armor table in a way that makes it usable. Great job!
|
|
|
|
Post by chicagowiz on Apr 13, 2023 7:31:18 GMT -6
I like how you formatted the Weapons vs. Armor table in a way that makes it usable. Great job! OK, *that* got my attention, for sure. I've long eschewed Weapon vs. AC, mainly relying on (hoping for?) the AC number itself to "smooth out" the differences in the aggregate over an entire combat. If there's an easy/usable way of including it, it'll be interesting to look at it! |
|
|
|
Post by Marcia B. on Apr 13, 2023 8:39:29 GMT -6
I like how you formatted the Weapons vs. Armor table in a way that makes it usable. Great job! Thank you! For more context for others: inspired by Delta's post about Gary's math being wrong in Greyhawk, I went back and redid the math to be a more accurate representation of the original bonuses/minuses in Chainmail. Ended up offering it in two flavors: as target numbers for d20, and as bonuses to attack rolls versus ascending AC.
I'm curious, Tom, which of the two are you using?  |
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Apr 13, 2023 10:08:51 GMT -6
The target numbers of the d20 roll plays much better at the table, from my experience.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marcia B. on Apr 13, 2023 10:39:46 GMT -6
The target numbers of the d20 roll plays much better at the table, from my experience. That makes sense! It seems more intuitive than adding two bonuses, or dealing with how variable the W vs A bonuses are in general. Glad it's helpful, thank you so much! |
|
|
|
Post by peelseel2 on Apr 16, 2023 8:04:58 GMT -6
Marcia,
An edit:
page 25, monster's by hit dice table. 1d should be "up to 1d" or "below or 1d"
|
|
|
|
Post by machfront on Apr 16, 2023 8:08:16 GMT -6
I absolutely cannot come close to controlling your project, but may I humbly suggest a thief class as if it was there at the start, that is, a “white box thief” at least as an addendum or appendix, etc (since the class is so iconic, at least). If you philosophically disagree, I get it, so no worries. Heh. I’ve already included the thief in a second appendix, along with other additional rules! I talk about it in a blog post, but to summarize: I don’t mind including these optional rules since I think they illustrate how the game evolved over time, but they’re included separately from the main body of the text to avoid confusion and preferential treatment. traversefantasy.blogspot.com/2023/02/fmc-appendix-b-optional-rules.htmlThat makes perfect sense to me! Cheers! Thanks for your solid work on this. Also, I just simply like the way it looks and feels. 🙂 |
|
|
|
Post by Marcia B. on Apr 16, 2023 9:03:04 GMT -6
Marcia, An edit: page 25, monster's by hit dice table. 1d should be "up to 1d" or "below or 1d" Thank you! |
|
|
|
Post by Marcia B. on Apr 16, 2023 9:03:27 GMT -6
I’ve already included the thief in a second appendix, along with other additional rules! I talk about it in a blog post, but to summarize: I don’t mind including these optional rules since I think they illustrate how the game evolved over time, but they’re included separately from the main body of the text to avoid confusion and preferential treatment. traversefantasy.blogspot.com/2023/02/fmc-appendix-b-optional-rules.htmlThat makes perfect sense to me! Cheers! Thanks for your solid work on this. Also, I just simply like the way it looks and feels. 🙂 Thank you as well!!  I'm really glad you like it. |
|
|
|
Post by peelseel2 on Apr 16, 2023 9:19:12 GMT -6
Marcia,
An edit:
Page 135, terrain move costs. Roads (Track's) movement only apply to swamp, mountain, and forest, bringing only those down by 1.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marcia B. on Apr 16, 2023 9:45:12 GMT -6
Thank you! |
|
|
|
Post by Marcia B. on Apr 30, 2023 16:05:59 GMT -6
Hi all! Wanted to float a little vocabulary change; I've referred to "fighters" rather than "fighting-men" for the document because I just prefer the former, but thought it would be funny to also rename "clerics" to "clergymen" to confound readers of both old and modern camps. Would this prove overly frustrating or tedious for any of y'all?
|
|
|
|
Post by machfront on May 1, 2023 6:00:47 GMT -6
Fighters rather than fighting-men would upset and confound nearly no one.
Changing clerics to “clergymen” seems kinda….arbitrarily bizarre for little to no reason, and also, isn’t as flavorful anyhow (considering the class’s ‘place’).
(And I even say this as a person who thinks the class is ‘Mary Sue’ and shouldn’t exist in the first place at all…but the thief class should…so…yeah…)
It’s a beloved and core class. Don’t mess with it. Heheh
|
|
|
|
Post by peelseel2 on May 1, 2023 6:29:40 GMT -6
I think it is fine the way it is. Common language of the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by machfront on May 1, 2023 6:54:55 GMT -6
On the other hand, if, for some reason you felt compelled to change terms…it may be understood were you to use: warrior, wizard, priest, rogue.
But, yeah…there’s no fully compelling reason to change terms while creating a super close ‘clone’ or ‘iteration’ of the original.
|
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on May 1, 2023 9:21:11 GMT -6
The terms were meant as broad archetypes. Not footman or archer, not vicar or rabbi, these are the full breadth of any and all human avenues of expertise. So, combat dedication or religious / philosophical / ethical dedication (see Outer Planes description in 78 PHB).
I would avoid making any of them one tradition within those paths.
To go super generic, perhaps fighter and deifier? (I always thought Magic-User was awesomely inclusive).
Then let players title themselves and create their own tradition to be a part of (or offer setting options, or both).
Klavnot, a 9-striped Snakegiver of "The Devourer"
Fantrios of the Hidden Tower Mages
Balt, a sword-wed Palgar
|
|
|
|
Post by Marcia B. on May 1, 2023 13:28:48 GMT -6
To clarify to all y’all, the purpose would entirely be to spoof the fighting-man name insofar as it is both clunky-sounding and arbitrarily gendered (where, by doing it to the cleric and not the fighter, it brings attention to the diction as an intentional choice rather than an arbitrary one). “Cleric” is easily and all around the better term, but I’m looking at making a pointed decision rather than a practical or preferential one.
Or to summarize, I think it’s as poor a word choice as “fighting-man”, and that’s my motivation rather than a roadblock.
|
|
|
|
Post by peelseel2 on May 1, 2023 13:55:32 GMT -6
I would keep it Cleric. No sense in creating more language divergence than is already present.
|
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on May 1, 2023 14:27:08 GMT -6
The books "officially" use fighting-men but still occasionally reference fighters as an interchangeable term, don't they? If you want to keep the in-joke then I would just throw a few references to "clergymen" into the prose here and there. I think that would be mildly humorous, and a sort of homage as well to Gygax's style of rules writing, where he slipped back and forth between technical terminology and pleonastic prose whenever it suited him, to the frustration of rules lawyers everywhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by peelseel2 on May 13, 2023 13:03:56 GMT -6
Marcia,
An edit:
The Dwarves in the monster section is missing the rule that they take 1/2 damage from ogres and giants
|
|
|
|
Post by blindaudelay on May 13, 2023 21:45:01 GMT -6
Looking forward to the POD release. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on May 14, 2023 6:32:01 GMT -6
To clarify to all y’all, the purpose would entirely be to spoof the fighting-man name insofar as it is both clunky-sounding and arbitrarily gendered... Fighting-man Magic-man Clergy-man Sneaky-man Just thinking out loud. Seriously, the change from fighting man to fighter does have a nice ring to it because it's smoother, the same way that a switch from mag9c-user to magician rolls off the tongue. Cleric to clergyman is funny in a way, but does seem like a step backwards and I feel like everyone would just house-rule it as Cleric again. Sort of like in the DCC RPG where the stats are basically the same as D&D but renames, so in my head I always switch them back to D&D's stats. Not a deal breaker, of course, but a change that doesn't do anything to make the game better IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on May 14, 2023 10:05:24 GMT -6
If Gygax hadn't called them fighting-men then they would have just been called men. It's the same idea as when chess pieces are called men. When you transition from the tabletop miniatures to roleplaying a singular "man", it's time to think more creatively about naming. In that case, "hero" would have been perfect except that "hero" refers specifically to four dice men. Warrior might have made a good title, but that's taken, too. So, for the first year, Gygax saddles d&d purchasers with the supremely awkward "fighting-man".
Gary's home players weren't calling them fighting-men. They were "fighters". I would've liked it if someone older would have pushed back on the title, "magic-user", but again, same problem: the first and best candidate is already in use as a level title. And so, "magic-user" stuck.
Marcia, it's your game, but don't you think we've all put up with enough of uncool terminology from the man, himself. What's next, making people and place names with no vowels in them?!
|
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on May 14, 2023 10:11:03 GMT -6
To clarify to all y’all, the purpose would entirely be to spoof the fighting-man name insofar as it is both clunky-sounding and arbitrarily gendered... Fighting-man Magic-man Clergy-man Sneaky-man LOL I would go for this, but can we also change fighting-man to fighty-man? It seems more in keeping with the kindergarten aesthetic. |
|
|
|
Post by Marcia B. on May 20, 2023 8:22:56 GMT -6
To clarify to all y’all, the purpose would entirely be to spoof the fighting-man name insofar as it is both clunky-sounding and arbitrarily gendered... Fighting-man Magic-man Clergy-man Sneaky-man Just thinking out loud. Seriously, the change from fighting man to fighter does have a nice ring to it because it's smoother, the same way that a switch from mag9c-user to magician rolls off the tongue. Cleric to clergyman is funny in a way, but does seem like a step backwards and I feel like everyone would just house-rule it as Cleric again. Sort of like in the DCC RPG where the stats are basically the same as D&D but renames, so in my head I always switch them back to D&D's stats. Not a deal breaker, of course, but a change that doesn't do anything to make the game better IMO. Was already going with Starbeard's idea, but when you put it that way I so empathize! 😂 The new version of Whitehack changed "constitution" to "toughness" for some reason, and it feels so annoying because everything else is the same. |
|
|
|
Post by Marcia B. on May 20, 2023 8:23:12 GMT -6
Marcia, An edit: The Dwarves in the monster section is missing the rule that they take 1/2 damage from ogres and giants Thank you!! |
|
|
|
Post by thomden on May 20, 2023 12:00:14 GMT -6
Fighting-man Magic-man Clergy-man Sneaky-man Just thinking out loud. Fight-user Magic-user Prayer-user Stealth-user |
|
I wouldn’t add the balor as an orc leader unless it was in the original print; and it might be! I only have access to the monster stats themselves. But FMC isn’t meant to modify the original ruleset in any case.
I'm really glad you like it.
