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.
User avatar
Solomoriah
Site Admin
Posts: 12447
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: LaBelle, Missouri
Contact:

Re: Errata (R53 and Later)

Post by Solomoriah »

Hokay... completed my revisions for R56, but I'm not going to release it just yet.

In general I agree with you regarding languages, BUT, the rules here mimic the coverage target very closely; I'm not in position to change them "officially."
My personal site: www.gonnerman.org
User avatar
TPFox
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu May 06, 2021 8:15 am

Re: Errata (R53 and Later)

Post by TPFox »

Solo, I'm glad to see my ideas bashed around - some accepted, some not - so that it would all come out as an even better version of a book you intended it to be. I don't have anything to add, but I wanted to make sure you added my more cut and dry suggested corrections in your working copy of r56. I'll list them here again, so you don't have to scroll through my large message again. They were:

Page 32 - Magic Missile
"This spell conjures a missile which is equivalent to a magic arrow, with a maximum range of 15". The arrow does 1d6+1 points of damage to any creature hit by it."

Change to: "The missile does 1d6+1 points of damage to any creature hit by it."

----

Page 40 - Speak with Plants
"...or to engate in any serious form of attack..."

I think this should be "engage."

---

Page 93 (2nd last paragraph) - "NPC parties will be equipped in a reasonable fashion, so excepting..."

Change "excepting" to "except"

---

Page 130 "The Tables below list the various Powers..."

Change: "below" to "that follow"

Page 131 "The Additional Features listed above..."

Change: "above" to "previously"
User avatar
Solomoriah
Site Admin
Posts: 12447
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: LaBelle, Missouri
Contact:

Re: Errata (R53 and Later)

Post by Solomoriah »

Yes, I dealt with all of those. If nothing else shows up I'll release the working copy.
My personal site: www.gonnerman.org
User avatar
cbarchuk
Posts: 206
Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 7:30 pm
Location: Raleigh, NC

Re: Errata (R53 and Later)

Post by cbarchuk »

Chris, I would also clarify what weapons are considered two-handed or not. I realize this is up to the DM but the lack of clarity has come up a few times in games where players are arguing realism vs. fantasy. I've been assuming any ranged weapon and any melee weapon weighing 100 coins or higher are considered to be two-handed.
User avatar
Solomoriah
Site Admin
Posts: 12447
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: LaBelle, Missouri
Contact:

Re: Errata (R53 and Later)

Post by Solomoriah »

It's not that clear-cut. For example, a thrown spear is a one-handed weapon, but if used in melee may be two-handed. This is meant to be left to the referee.

For my purposes, I mostly follow the BFRPG definitions.
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 »

I recently discovered this game and I like it very much.

Reading through the rules, I noticed a few minor things that could be addressed. I have read through this errata thread but have't had time to read through previous errata threads or the development threads. If these issues have been brought up before, I apologize...

1. In the original game, an important distinction between fighters and thieves was that thieves do not get to use all magical weapons. While the descriptions of the Fighter and the M-U specifically mention which types of magical weapons/armor/items they may use, the descriptions of the Cleric and the Thief do not. Since page 101 states: "In general, a magic weapon may be used by any character who would be permitted to use the non-magical version of the same weapon." and thieves may use any weapon, it would appear that thieves may use all magical weapons. May I suggest that the following line (or something close to it) be added to the description of the thief on page 6: "Thieves can employ magic daggers and magic swords but none of the other magical weaponry."

2. There don't seem to be any rules for human dual classing. Was that an intentional omission?

3. A not unreasonable argument can be made that the text of the original rules supports the idea of clerics using spell books. While not an important issue, perhaps this could be mentioned in the appendix (under Acquisition of Spells) as an optional rule.

--- Joan
User avatar
Tazer_The_Yoot
Posts: 201
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2019 6:24 pm

Re: Errata (R53 and Later)

Post by Tazer_The_Yoot »

On the topic of the material Iron Falcon emulates and Cleric magic:

The following line does appear in supplement 1 of the original game under the Wisdom explanation:

All cleric spells are considered as “divinely” given and as such a cleric with a wisdom factor of 3 would know all of the spells as well as would a cleric with an 18 wisdom factor


^ I believe that's strongly hinting that Clerics don't use spell book, right? I mean, later editions of the game certainly codified that, but it appears to be the intention here as well.
Katkin_kalvin
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2022 9:07 am

Re: Errata (R53 and Later)

Post by Katkin_kalvin »

Tazer_The_Yoot wrote: Mon Mar 21, 2022 2:31 pm I believe that's strongly hinting that Clerics don't use spell book, right? I mean, later editions of the game certainly codified that, but it appears to be the intention here as well.
I was aware of that line when I brought up Clerical magic. It certainly does hint at that given that we are looking backwards at the rules with the full knowledge of how later editions of the game will define "divinely given". If we look only at the text (and the context), however, one could still reasonably infer that the Cleric's ability to learn clerical spells is somehow "divinely given" and they simply don't have to learn the spell but they do still have spell books (as established in Vol. I of the original game).

--- Joan
User avatar
Solomoriah
Site Admin
Posts: 12447
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: LaBelle, Missouri
Contact:

Re: Errata (R53 and Later)

Post by Solomoriah »

Katkin_kalvin wrote: Mon Mar 21, 2022 11:13 am I recently discovered this game and I like it very much.

Reading through the rules, I noticed a few minor things that could be addressed. I have read through this errata thread but have't had time to read through previous errata threads or the development threads. If these issues have been brought up before, I apologize...

1. In the original game, an important distinction between fighters and thieves was that thieves do not get to use all magical weapons. While the descriptions of the Fighter and the M-U specifically mention which types of magical weapons/armor/items they may use, the descriptions of the Cleric and the Thief do not. Since page 101 states: "In general, a magic weapon may be used by any character who would be permitted to use the non-magical version of the same weapon." and thieves may use any weapon, it would appear that thieves may use all magical weapons. May I suggest that the following line (or something close to it) be added to the description of the thief on page 6: "Thieves can employ magic daggers and magic swords but none of the other magical weaponry."
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). Maintaining the vagueness of the original game was part of the intention here, and thus your suggestion won't work for my goals. You may, of course, do this however you wish in your own game.
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. In the sense that I chose to mimic that era of game, I suppose it's intentional, but on the other hand it's not an "omission" since they weren't there in the first place.
Katkin_kalvin wrote: Mon Mar 21, 2022 11:13 am 3. A not unreasonable argument can be made that the text of the original rules supports the idea of clerics using spell books. While not an important issue, perhaps this could be mentioned in the appendix (under Acquisition of Spells) as an optional rule.
It doesn't need to be. Like your point 1 above, this is left to the referee's interpretation.
My personal site: www.gonnerman.org
User avatar
Solomoriah
Site Admin
Posts: 12447
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: LaBelle, Missouri
Contact:

Re: Errata (R53 and Later)

Post by Solomoriah »

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.
My personal site: www.gonnerman.org
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests