(3 replies, posted in LotFP Gaming Forum)

I agree that dwarfs get more than enough bonuses to be worthwhile without increasing their to-hit chance. Higher hit dice, Fighter combat options (not a minor thing, with ACs topping out around 21), better saving throws, and an increased Constitution Modifier.

Now my version of LotFP has a handful of houserules, the first being that a character's Attack Bonus also applies to damage rolls (to stop Magic Missile becoming the only way of dealing meaningful damage to high HD monsters), so I'd be more than happy to give dwarfs, halflings, and specialists increases in their Attack Bonus at every third level up to +5 (which would be at 13th level), but it's not something they actually need. Although note I've also modified the Saving Throw rules to use d6s and standardise across classes, which results in high saves not being a bonus for a class.

But without ACs in the mid-twenties a mid level dwarf is par with a mid level fighter, although magic-users still end up being the best of the whole set (an unfortunate side effect of high level magic being that powerful and the standard casting system having resource management as the only downside). The Fighter doesn't actually catch up in the higher levels either, due to their Saving Throws capping at about three points higher than the Dwarf.

Will most parties prefer a Fighter to a Dwarf? Probably, that to-hit bonus is a massive boost, but having a stout dwarf who just will not die is just as good if not better in most situations.

The Dwarf is the LotFP class I want to play the most for that reason. No fancy spells or scaling attack bonus, just a beard and a the inability to die.


(10 replies, posted in LotFP Gaming Forum)

On muskets: they actually have a really useful ability compared to arquebuses. Most firearms ignore five points of armour at short range, muskets ignore five points of armour at all ranges. While in a dungeon pistols are probably better, arquebuses in the larger halls and caverns, once you get into engangements at ranges greater than fifty feet muskets still get that nice 'effectively ignoring armour' bonus, which essentially makes up for their increased range penalties. If you're using a rifled musket it's even better.

On demihumans: I agree with removing them in many games, although I'd suggest using any players really want to use. Of the three the Elf is basically MU+ and can generally be subsituted for the local fair folk/alfar equivalent. Dwarves are an interesting alternate option, basically being the ultimate dungeoneers with some warrior training, and in some alternate earths I can actually see the idea that there are communities of small hardy people to trade with in the mountains as a sort of open secret (i.e. it's well known in the villages near dwarven settlements, most other places have heard tales but don't really think about them). If you don't want halflings just living alongside humans then... well I can't think of anything right now, maybe recast them as more goblinesque?


(10 replies, posted in LotFP Gaming Forum)

Andomedanaea wrote:

I'm sceptical of the internet, vs. actual books. And the rules of english are clear:

Octopus - Octopi
Nucleus - Nuclei
Chorus - Chori
Arquebus - Arquebi

Octopus-> octopuses. Octopodes is arguably correct, but doesn't really follow the roles of modern English. Octopi is wrong as it doesn't come from Latin.
Nucleus does become nuclei.
Chorus-> choruses. Seriously, nobody says choir, it doesn't flow of the tongue.
Arquebus-> arquebuses. It's not derived from Latin (from German according to a quick search).
Genius-> genii, because it is derived from Latin.

It's like 'i before e', the rule of pluralising 'us' with 'I' only applies to a certain subset of words. The correct way to pluralise ones outside of that set is to place 'es' on the end.

It would honestly be easier if we could her people to make all English plurals end in s, we already use such plurals as 'geniuses' in everyday conversation.


(10 replies, posted in LotFP Gaming Forum)

To keep with the 'saves as skills' idea, how about the following:

There are six saves, each tied to an Ability. Might (Strength), Agility (Dexterity), Endurance (Constitution), Deduction (Intelligence), Perception (Wisdom), and Willpower (Charisma). Each begins at two in six, a positive modifier in the linked Ability makes it a three in six, a negative modifier makes it a one in six.

There are thirty six possible points in this system, and your average PC will begin with twelve. If we assume we want PCs to have a maximum in all saves by level twenty one there's still more than twenty points to hand out, so increasing a single save by one point per level should be fine, or one skill point every other level if you want something closer or 'classic' LotFP scaling.

Oh, we should also decide important things that the six saves defend against. Might is our basic save versus restrained, so it's what you roll to break out of ropes or paralysis. Agility is essentially reflex from D&D3.5, so is our anti-area affect save (less useful given the lack of AoE spells in LotFP, but it's already important due to AC). Endurance is save versus poisions. Deduction is our save versus illusions. Perception is a catch-all save versus traps. Willpower is a catch-all save versus magic. Not perfect, but each one has their uses.

For the record I'm less important about the Intelligence save being important because I give everybody bonus skill points equal to 2+int modifier(+the number of additional skills I add).

Here starting save values begin at roughly the same ranges as in the original rules, and advance slightly faster (which makes a big difference by the teens).

The problem is that the Dwarf and Halfling begin needing extra bonuses if you're running with demihumans, elves actually get enough advantages already to stay at their current XP track (being MUs with combat options, less restrictive casting, and better skills). Okay, maybe we can give the elf spells as a MU (read magic+three at first level, one that costs no money each level), but otherwise there's no problem. I'd be tempted to just give halflings a skill point per level and then give dwarves a Fighter's to hit bonus and maybe raise their XP table to be identical to an elf's, but then I like the idea of there being a second 'complete warrior' option in the demihumans.


(5 replies, posted in LotFP Gaming Forum)

Crunk Posby wrote:
AnonymousWizard wrote:

I'm interested to know if the VaM spellcasting system is the one being used in the new edition. I'd honestly pick it up and just port it's magic system into the current version just for that.

The magic system was introduced in the play test document, more fully formed in VAM, and is being used again for this year’s free rpg offering: Eldritch Cock. I’m confident the publisher is all-in on this new system and it will be used in the new rule book.

Also, I believe firearms will be integrated fully into the rules instead of being in the appendix.

Well I'm liking the sound of that, moving LotFP into a more Earth-like period of technology development where at least matchlocks were around while plate armour was being developed*.

I'm certainly happy that the magic system is being changed, D&D style vancian magic never felt right to me, and always liked that system. I'll have to check when Free RPG Day actually is so I can pick up the other half of this set.

* I know that it's not 100% certain if full plate was adopted before or after firearms, my research suggests that plate armour was used beforehand, but full gothic plate and similar styles were post-matchlock.


(5 replies, posted in LotFP Gaming Forum)

I personally enjoy the idea of MUs and Clerics being combined into one class, as there are several Cleric spells I can see MUs enjoying (no, I'm not talking about the healing ones). It also feels more fantasy, as it's rate for religious magic to be treated as something different to other kinds of magic (if it exists).

The potential saving their rules are interesting, and I'm not sure what to make of them. I suppose that they'll make saving fully rarer, which isn't the worst thing in the world. I'll likely stick with the current version though, personal preference.

I fully agree with banishing demihumans to an appendix. They're not something that'll for every world, similar to firearms.



(4 replies, posted in LotFP Gaming Forum)

I also think four might be two low, but I've been thinking along slightly different lines.

I'm considering if I get to run LotFP to allow all characters to begin with points to spend on Specialist skills equal to 2+Intelligence Modifier, and then Specialists get an extra four or six points on top of that. But I'll also be adding some more skills, including Lore (for random knowledge that isn't covered by your class), and possibly Charm and Intimidate (or maybe just a single 'Influence' skill) to add a bit more character skill to those areas.

The basic idea is that if this is stuff that everybody can do then people should vary in their ratings at least slightly, while still allowing specialists to be just better in their chosen skills (because even when everybody begins with an average of two pips to place an additional four is an attractive boost). This way most specialists can start out good in two skills of their choice, instead of being good at one and bad at everything else.


(1 replies, posted in LotFP Gaming Forum)

Just picked up a physical copy of Rules and Magic and I'm going to be running the game for some friends tomorrow as a one shot. I love both the aesthetic and the rules, especially as my first experience of roleplaying was my dad's copies of BECM D&D. Races as classes make sense to me, classes should be archetypes, which the generic dwarf, elf, and halfling are.

I like the simplicity of the firearms rules as well, they feel alright without being too overpowering (with even flintlocks generally firing once per combat without the 'barrel of muskets' strategy).

Just wanted to post that I'm glad this game exists, and I hope to keep supporting it in the future.