[BFRPG] The Olde Dungeoneer's Almanack

[Solomoriah]

Here's a sample cover for this nonexistent work:



I'm interested in proposals for articles. Remember, I plan to proof and format each article and release same as individual documents as soon as possible; then, when a hundred pages or so of such articles are ready, I'll combine them into a volume of the Almanack for publication both as a free PDF and as a printed work via Lulu.com (at cost of course).

I'm also considering the fate of the Companion... it may be that the Druid, the Illusionist, and other bits of the Companion should really be Almanack articles also. After all, I plan to say in the Companion that "all rules herein are strictly optional." Given that, perhaps there is no reason for a Companion at all.

Comments?

[Solomoriah]

... well that was a resounding silence ...

[GenghisWayne]

Well, I love the cover. I also like the "collection of articles" concept.

Indeed, I've enjoyed reading all of your work. I just have not had a chance to use any of it yet. I have plans to blatantly plagarize pieces of your dungeons for a Mega Dungeon I'm working on (for my own personal, non-published use of course).

Sorry for not speaking up, I just didn't have anything to add. Please keep up the good work.

One of your more silent fans,
GW-

[maddog]

Given that, perhaps there is no reason for a Companion at all.

Comments?

Sorry Sol. I was looking for this thread today to comment but was side-tracked by work. I think either way will work nicely. The only difference would be that a "Companion" would be official rules and the Alamanack would be optional rules. It's really a question of what direction you want BFRPG to go. I'm torn myself as I like both ideas.

--Ray.

[Eldrad]

The cover looks great.

[Solomoriah]

Sorry Sol. I was looking for this thread today to comment but was side-tracked by work. I think either way will work nicely. The only difference would be that a "Companion" would be official rules and the Alamanack would be optional rules. It's really a question of what direction you want BFRPG to go. I'm torn myself as I like both ideas.

The attraction of the Almanack is that it isn't official.

It seems that everyone I've talked with has agreed that what is in BFRPG is the true, indivisible core of the game (except the guys who don't like thieves). Then they say "It'd be perfect if it had X" where X might be druids, illusionists, assassins, necromancers, gnomes, half-ogres, drow... any number of things.

I feel that keeping the "working set" of the game to a minimal size is a good idea; modules should avoid depending on supplements, and those that do should limit the dependency as much as possible. I feel this way because I believe that really good old-school modules should be usable by everyone.

The Companion idea does create a new source of official rules, even though I planned to describe them as "optional." I think the Almanack would be more clearly understood as optional rules than the Companion would be.

But I am interested in comments.

ALSO: Anyone interested in developing the undeveloped things in the Companion (whether it is published as is or broken into articles) should let me know. I'm up to my rear end right now, and I'd be happy to welcome a few collaborators.

[WSmith]

I will have time to post tomorrow.

[Eldrad]

HEHEHE

I am coming up with a small mass combat set of rules.

No time gotta go.

[WSmith]

I like the cover.

After some thought, I am more interested in the Alamanak idea tha the companion. I like the core of BFRPG as it is right now. IMO, it is perfect. I can pick up Tegal Manor, In Search of the Unknown, or the Village of Hommlet right now and run them using BFRPG with no trouble and minimal if any conversion. My comments of barbarians and rangers were only for supplimental material.

FWIW, take this with a grain of salt. The companion reminds me of UA (which I have never been a fan of) while the Almanack reminds me of the concept of the "Best of Dragon" magazines, (which I have always liked.) A companion sounds like "a bunch of optional official rules" that seems to convey they must be used even if an "optional use" statement is used, while the Alamanack is truely a random selection of optional rules that can be cherry picked from. Plus, if you get enough for a second Almanack...

[GenghisWayne]

I agree 100% with WSmith. Down with the Companion. Long live the Almanac.

[Solomoriah]

Works for me...

... any takers on the collaboration offer?

[maddog]

... any takers on the collaboration offer?

I'm doing a bunch of monsters on the [BFRPG] New Monsters thread. Please feel free to use any that you like.

--Ray.

[Solomoriah]

I'm going to, maddog. I was referring to finishing the Companion "articles."

The Druid and Illusionist will make fine articles; the new spells should be separated in this case. The spell Phantom Messenger is a "house" spell (it has appeared in both my Glain and Nevermore campaigns under various names); I have a few others, such as Pentalion's Bloodbirds, that I might assemble together into a "Spells of Glain" article.

WSmith has suggested additional fighter subclasses; those, combined with a modified Fighter class incorporating "slow" specialization, would make a fine article or series of articles.

I'm in favor of making each subclass a separate article, to make it easy for the GM to include (or deny) whatever he or she prefers. The Almanack will be in the same "Reader's Digest" format as Footprints (where every article is presented as a contiguous unit of pages, and no two articles ever share page space), which will make printing out only those parts desired easy. Of course, I plan to publish each article as a separate unit to start with, and assemble an Almanack issue only when I have enough material to fill up a hundred pages or more (so as to make printing via Lulu.com cost effective).

[Eldrad]

Ditto I agree!

[Eldrad]

I would really like us to come to an agreement about how the basic ranger will be formed. Take a look at my suggestions on previous post. The reason you ask? Well I have a setting/city called Brotherhood's Fire and I want to convert it to BFRPG! The problem is the "Brotherhood" is a group of rangers. So I really need a ranger "class" for BFRPG.


On subclasses/otherclasses and the sort. Let's make them hard to become one. Like in the OD&D version of the Paladin you had to have a Cha. of 17 making really hard for there to be 20 paladins running around.

[Solomoriah]

WSmith has promised something along the lines of a fighter subclass article (or series). I trust it will be worth the wait.

[Mythmere]

Nice cover!

My preference isn't relevant since as a 1e player I probably won't actually play BFRPG, but man, it all looks good!

[WSmith]

WSmith has promised something along the lines of a fighter subclass article (or series). I trust it will be worth the wait.

What do you guys prefer:

1. Seperate classes, such as ranger, barbarian, paladin, etc...

2. A sort of "fighter subclass branches" derived from a set of various proficincies, not actual "class", meaning customization for the basic fighter

3. Advanced class for the fighter, (say a x level fighter can become a certain fighter)

4. A mix of all of these elements..

5. Something not mentioned above

Shoot, I will try all of them if anyone is interested.

[maddog]

What do you guys prefer:

1. Seperate classes, such as ranger, barbarian, paladin, etc...

2. A sort of "fighter subclass branches" derived from a set of various proficincies, not actual "class", meaning customization for the basic fighter

3. Advanced class for the fighter, (say a x level fighter can become a certain fighter)

I would prefer #2 first, #1 second and avoidence of #3.

The downside to #2 is that you would have to come up with a proficincy/skills system but another upside would be the ability to create other character classes with the same method. You could also use the Fighter XP chart for advancement.

#1 would be more limited in creativity but it would also make well defined character classes.

I guess it comes down to how open or closed we would want the character classes to be.

--Ray.

[mkendall]

The downside to #2 is that you would have to come up with a proficincy/skills system but another upside would be the ability to create other character classes with the same method. You could also use the Fighter XP chart for advancement.
--Ray.

Unless I'm missing something, you'd have a fighter with additional skills/powers progressing at the same rate a vanilla fighter. Seems unbalanced to me, unless there were some XP buy-in, with XP dues on leveling.

[Eldrad]

I like #1 with as few rules as possible.

So WSmith what do u have for the ranger so far?

[WSmith]

Unless I'm missing something, you'd have a fighter with additional skills/powers progressing at the same rate a vanilla fighter. Seems unbalanced to me, unless there were some XP buy-in, with XP dues on leveling.

That is the idea I have for this method. Certain "talents" cost certain XPs.

[WSmith]

I like #1 with as few rules as possible.

So WSmith what do u have for the ranger so far?

Nothing more than a concept. However, using your post:

Ranger
A Ranger is a protector of the wilderness. He uses the same XP chart as a fighter but is restricted to Leather Armor and Shields though he can wear any armor many of his skills would be lessened.

I would go as far as to say the thieving skills would be unusable in armor other than leather. Plus, I might consider some kind of XP buy in. I would make this a human only class, but am also open debate the elf.

Must have a Str of 9 Dex and Wis of 12

I would up this to 13 in each. Like you said, make 'em rare.

As a thief...
Move Silently
Hide
Listen
Remove Traps

Track +1 a level Wisdom Check

Hatred of Humanoids: +1 damage every 2 levels to Humanoids and Giants.

I think the rest is pretty good. More of this later.

[WSmith]

Also note, I gave a lot of feedback and work to the C&C ranger, but it has been so long that I have read that material that I might need to review it.

[Solomoriah]

I'm not in favor of the "advanced" (i.e. prestige) class system. Just don't like it. The "ala carte" method would be interesting, but honestly, I think I'd like to see monolithic subclasses instead; your suggestions regarding Eldrad's post look good to me for the ranger.

[Eldrad]

I agree on the monlithic class system. It's just easier to create characters and get started playing.


This Almanack is kinda reminding me of the old Strategic Review. I think with the additions to the Almanack it will very much resemble the old 74. Which is really cool I think.

[Nikosandros]

What do you guys prefer:

1. Seperate classes, such as ranger, barbarian, paladin, etc...

2. A sort of "fighter subclass branches" derived from a set of various proficincies, not actual "class", meaning customization for the basic fighter

3. Advanced class for the fighter, (say a x level fighter can become a certain fighter)

4. A mix of all of these elements..

5. Something not mentioned above

Shoot, I will try all of them if anyone is interested.

Well, I'd like to see option 1. But option 3 (as an additonal possibility, not instead of) also sounds intriguing, if done properly...

[Eldrad]

OKAY for use in creation of the barbarian my OD&D barbarian.txt. from the now defunt never started Odd Earth Society. Use what you can but I kept it simple.

New Fighter Subclass: Barbarian
The Barbarian is a subclass of the fighter better knows as the berserker. If the fighter has a strength and constitution of 16 or more he can elect to be a barbarian. He can limited to leather armor and can use all weapons. His Hit Points per level are now D10. The barbarian can move faster than a normal character as he adds +3" to his movement. He has a natural berserk ability that he can use once a day per 4 levels. The berserker rage gives the player +2 to combat rolls and damage. The berserker rage last the players Constitution in rounds. After the berserker rage the player must rest for 20 minus his constitution in rounds with a -4 to all actions and half damage. The barbarian also has a natural resistance to magic and saves 3 levels higher. The barbarian also has a vast knowledge of wilderness survival. Only Humans can become Barbarians. Barbarians must be neutral or chaotic.

Also possibly an article if any like it for the Almanack the Odd Earth setting. It was orginally a setting for the old 74 D&D I was going to try out BUT BFRPG might work out better. It's a very rough draft.

Odd Earth
Odd Earth is our world in a lost ancient time. The ice caps are huge and there are now massive continents making the oceans and seas smaller. The world is very primitive as volcanoes and savage storms beat down upon mankind. Lands can be changed and destroyed by the violent earthquakes, floods, and other disasters. Some lands have disappeared all together. Different areas of the world will correspond to the cultures and lands of history and today but in a more magical ancient forgotten time.
It is a time of great and terrible wars (Chainmail anyone?) that tear across the different lands destroying and conquering. Odd Earth is very sparsely populated and with all its centuries of wars and destruction the lands are filled with forgotten dungeons and crypts.

There is a land that lies many miles from what will be off the coast of England. This land long flooded and forgotten is a land full of ancient tales.

It all starts in a little Barony far southeast in the borderland frontier...


The little growing village lies right outside the Baron’s castle. From here you shall adventure and clear out the dungeons in the area. This village like the Odd Earth shall grow into a town in a few years and then a city. The players themselves may become barons and start their own Baronies. All is rumored not well. To the south the Black Dragon’s goblins attack outlying farms and lumber camps. To the east the villain only know as the Black Baron is harassing and claiming some of the lands of this fair Barony. To the north a vile army of the undead frequently attacks small settlements. The baron is loyal to the King to the east though none from this village have ever traveled to his lands.

Far into the eastern lands is the rumored city of Babylon, a city older than any other built before time, a city of a thousand gods. It is where the Emperor of the world lives.

[rich]

What do you guys prefer:

1. Seperate classes, such as ranger, barbarian, paladin, etc...

In general, I'd go this route. In Classic D&D, one of the common questions I get from players is "why can't I be a druid at level 1?" IMO, any variant/advanced class that makes sense for 1st level PCs should be a full fledged class.

2. A sort of "fighter subclass branches" derived from a set of various proficincies, not actual "class", meaning customization for the basic fighter

Sounds like AD&D2e kits, IMO. In my experience, these are tough to keep balanced, and they add a little more complexity to character generation than I care for in a classic D&D style game.

3. Advanced class for the fighter, (say a x level fighter can become a certain fighter)

I'm agreeable to this to a certain extent. The only caveat is that I find few examples of a real variant class that would be earned simply by being a high(er) level fighter or whatever. If there were other ways of earning access to these "advanced" classes, I would be all for it, for example:

• A fighter with Wis 12+ who abides by a "code of chivarly" the DM presents may become a paladin
• A Cleric who gives up metallic armor and weapons and abides by a "code of nature" the DM presents may become a druid
• A Thief with Dex 12+ who keeps his encumbrance level at "light load" or lighter may become an Acrobat.
• etc.

5. Something not mentioned above

Well. sort of. While optional and/or advanced classes can sometimes fill niches overlooked by the core classes, I tend to find that most of these percieved holes in the classes can be filled by introducing a skill/proficiency system. I think such a system is at least worth considering if the game is to be expanded beyond the iconic core classes of classic D&D type games.

[Solomoriah]

Announcing!

Illusionists: A Basic Fantasy Supplement Release 2006.0, and Druids: A Basic Fantasy Supplement Release 2006.0 -- August 31, 2006: To start the process rolling, I've decided to release these (very unfinished) articles for the Druid and Illusionist classes. Anyone wishing to submit articles for BFRPG should download at least one of these articles, and use it for a template.

http://basicfantasy.newcenturycomputers.net