Oh no! It's.. Frankengame!!

[Dimirag]

BF's AC is not an adaptation from 5ed

You can use the spontaneous casting from 5ed with the BF spells per day amount, or change that amount as you please. The thing to consider is the MU's power increment...

[Olgabelle]

BF's AC is not an adaptation from 5ed

BFRPG and D&D5e both borrow their AC system from D&D3e.

I misread the original post about AC and thought "why adapt that from 5e, they're both derived from 3e and essentially the same."

[Metroknight]

If you don't think 5e allows enough spells per day, you're going to hate any old school or old school style game

In 5e, a 20th level Wizard has a base spread of 4,3,3,3,3,2,2,1,1 "slots". In OD&D (with supplements), a 20th lvl MU has a spread of 7,7,7,7,7,7,3,3,2. Big difference.

If you use the magic user options supplement and choose a good combination of options from it you could get a close representation of what you are looking for. I never saw the need of 8th or 9th level spells as most games never went long enough to reach the level required but that was probably just my groups.

The magic user options supplement has an interesting option listed called Liberal Casting. Take a look at that. The free casting option listed in that supplement might be more what you are looking for also.

[paladinn]

Looking at the MU supplement (pretty cool stuff, btw)..

I would have clerics be able to use "free casting", since their "spells" are actually answers to prayer, not dependent on memorization. MU's can use "liberal casting". But if I'm incorporating a more 5e magic system, it's kind of a moot point.

For "bonus spells", I think a high INT should allow a MU to memorize/ prepare more spells, but Not provide more "spell slots." A high WIS could possibly provide a cleric more "slots." This would help distinguish between divine and arcane magic.

One thing I Really like about 5e is being able to cast a given spell, like Cure Wounds, at a higher level instead of having to prepare Cure Light Wounds, Cure Serious Wounds, etc.

I'm also thinking to limit actual spell casting to actual spellcasters (MUs, clerics, druids, illusionists), and Not to allow for paladins, rangers and bards. The paladin in OD&D had a few special abilities but not actual casting. I'm looking for alternatives for rangers and bards that have special abilities but Not spellcasting. Thinking of possibly adapting the Castles & Crusades versions. I definitely want to adapt the C&C illusionist.. Big distinction from the wizard!

Thanks for all the guidance

[SmootRK]

http://www.basicfantasy.org/showcase.cgi?sid=23 Rangers and more.

http://www.basicfantasy.org/showcase.cgi?sid=16 Bards to consider

http://www.basicfantasy.org/showcase.cgi?sid=7 Another Spell Casting style to consider

http://www.basicfantasy.org/showcase.cgi?sid=7 Quasi-Classes - alternate ideas to implement Rangers, Bards, Paladins, etc.

All docs that I wrote. There are other ideas.

[paladinn]

Thanks Kevin.. In all honesty, I've downloaded those (and more). I think your take(s) on the bard might be overkill for what I'm considering. For BECMI, there was a Dragon magazine article that used the thief as a basis, took away sneak attack and added some charm/ inspire kind of abilities. But the character would still be a reconizable rogue/thief. Just like I'd want the fighter sub-classes to be fighters first and foremost.

Your quasi-classes are interesting as well, but I'm not sure it's quite what I'm going for.

I'm also thinking to have a unified XP/ level mechanic, so that if players Do want to multi-class, it will make the math easier. "Baseline" fighters and thieves would receive different buffs if they don't want to "specialize" into paladins, rangers, bards, etc. I'm thinking to reserve weapon specialization for such fighters.

Again, just going through the thought processes.

Thanks again!

[Dimirag]

I like the idea of each core class having the option to lose one or more special features in order to gain others and become a subclass.

[Ironwolf]

* I'm thinking of a Very simple "skill system" that rolls D20, adding modifiers and either the character's level (for "Thief skills") or half the level rounded down (for "class skills"; kind of like 4E). And try to use D20 for just about everything.

I was thinking of using the Ability Rolls chart that is already in the BFRPG rulebook and using a D20 for most skill checks, with the following modifiers:

Thieves get a +5 bonus to all rolls when using any of their Thief Abilities

Race related abilities (such as Elves finding secret doors) get a +4 bonus

Other Class and Background related abilities (such as Rangers tracking) get a +3 bonus

I want something simple and easy to remember, though I'm not quite sure how appropriate this would be in actual play. I'm mainly just thinking aloud here.

[Dimirag]

That's doable, things that should get better with experience use the level on their check while some classes can use a bonus reflecting better training than others in that area

I would go with the system the OP said: Full level for class skills, half level for skills that should become better with experience and no level for everything else

[Ironwolf]

I would go with the system the OP said: Full level for class skills, half level for skills that should become better with experience and no level for everything else

I do like that system as well.

But what would you use as the DC/Target Number? 20 for Hard tasks, and 15 for Medium difficulty, ala D&D 5e?

Would you use the Ability Rolls chart from the BFRPG rule book at all? That chart already takes into account tasks getting easier as the PCs level up.