Freebooters on the Frontier 2e Discussion

[Maezar]

Greetings all,

Sorry to interrupt this conversation but I’m not sure I’m ready to post this as a “hangout” yet. I have developed an “Advanced” game based mostly on Freebooters and similarly inspired/influenced by 1E/ OSR. The game has its own moves and playbooks based on the d12. Perhaps most interestingly, the game is played with no GM. I’ve playtested in person with a few groups of players for several years and I’d now like to try some online sessions. I gave this a try about 1 year ago, but the play-by-post format didn’t really work – I think it needs to be realtime. I wonder if anyone here might like to give this a try, maybe 1-on-1 or in a group of three?

[duffina]

Here’s my recap of the last two sessions in the Saltlands. CW light descriptions of gore below.
This is a recap of two 4-hour sessions. This was all improvised with the exception of NPCs and monsters.

The freebooters set out to acquire the deed to an abandoned keep. On the way the scout encounters a solitary monster hunter from the south (a human woman nearly seven feet tall with a sort of Estonian accent) stalking some creature. She has silver crossbow bolts and holy water. The MU casts cube of truth and we hear more of her backstory, and that she has been stalking a were-horse for over a year. Meanwhile, the rest of the party is ambushed by said were-horse - it’s terrifying. The mere encounter with such a thing causes “stress damage” (a whopping d6 of Wisdom damage), and one of the freebooters takes a trauma. The hunter arrives just in time to thwart it, setting up the Thread “Were-horse!”

They discover the keep to be inhabited by kobold-like creatures, and the MU knows that seeing these creatures out in daylight is unusual (we determine that something must be driving them out from the beneath). The freebooters avoid a kobold patrol and find their way into the keep, and successfully stealth their way into a locked cellar where some booty is stashed, including the deed.

The freebooters return to Fritenbil after leveling up and one of their NPC friends throws them a party. We do some social intrigue and find out that there have been unusual disappearances in the warehouse district for a couple of weeks now. A few bodies turned up with oozing puncture marks in their neck. After a week of downtime (which the players really enjoyed, mechanically speaking), we open into a scene in town square where a bunch of townsfolk accuse an elderly woman of peddling snake oil (she’s a magic item vendor, but only if the freebooters Get Lucky…otherwise, she’s peddling snake oil).

They learn of a rumor involving a suspicious, floating figure emerging from a sewer entrance in the warehouse district, and they link it to the disappearances. They decide to scope it out. They do a Traverse Sewer move and find exactly what they’re looking for - signs of the suspect in question. They find…CW loose piles of molted humanoid skin that reek of an acrid chemical…they follow the signs to an underground river and follow it upstream, which connects them to the distant cave lair of a vampyr. They discover the invisible thing with the MU’s spell hobjobulon’s eye of gold; they fight the thing and its thrall, and it’s a very close and riveting fight. The vampyr uses moves like cause one of them to deal their damage to an ally, and uses its single puncturing fang to devastating effect. Our cleric does not know this, but contracted the vampyr disease in that fight (a Thread, no doubt). After the fight, they discover the vampyr to be the source of the disappearances and find its stashed booty, which includes blood elixirs and spell components, near piles and piles of molted skin…

As far as feedback goes…

One of my players pulled me aside after today’s session and said “so…I’m not gonna come to your Saturday D&D games any longer cause you’ve completely converted me to this game, and I just can’t do D&D combat anymore…” thumbs up emoji

Armor is a lot tougher than I initially thought, and I’ve found I’ve added the penetrating feature to some of the monsters’ attacks to make their damage a bit more threatening. Or I’ve been using monster moves to sunder 1 or 2 points of armor. Should I be thinking less damage dealing, more condition/circumstance moves for monsters?

Also, I might have missed this but it doesn’t seem like there is an armor restriction for MUs? I use the awkward tag as a restriction to Cast Spell, so the best armor a MU can wear is chainmail. Is this intentionally left for the group to decide?

I’m allowing characters to use Dexterity to fight with any type of weapon, thereby making the precise tag obsolete. Is this a bad idea? The fighter at our table insists on playing a Dexterity build and I don’t want to restrict the creativity there, as fighting dexterously with a mace seems reasonable to me.

Cast Spell has been wild. The 3rd level MU in the party attempted to Cast Spell with +4 power from four components, thereby reaching spectacular effects with prolonged duration. It seemed broken at the time, so I ruled that only one component could be burned per spell (I’m thinking of introducing spell component +2, +3, etc. as rare finds to compensate for this). I also haven’t necessarily improvised the arcane incidents to the best degree. If anyone has examples of accidents tuned to minor and moderate spell effects, I’d love to hear them.

Thanks for reading if you did! As always, I adore this game.

[jasonlutes]

Armor is a lot tougher than I initially thought, and I’ve found I’ve added the penetrating feature to some of the monsters’ attacks to make their damage a bit more threatening. Or I’ve been using monster moves to sunder 1 or 2 points of armor. Should I be thinking less damage dealing, more condition/circumstance moves for monsters?

My approach to monsters is to just do what makes sense in the fiction. An “unintelligent” creature might just attack and attack even if the armor is preventing it from inflicting damage, but predators instinctively search for other ways to get at their prey if one approach isn’t paying off. Think of seagulls dropping clams on rocks or fishers flipping porcupines onto their backs. If an intelligent creature is having a hard time getting past armor, or recognizes that the armor will be hard to penetrate before even trying, they should shift tactics accordingly and make moves that get them in close in order to circumvent armor entirely (e.g., if a bad guy with a knife can maneuver past the fighter’s sword and get in close, his next move could be to stab the fighter in the neck or get the knife under their breastplate, or whatever), find other ways to put the PC at a disadvantage (knock them out, knock them down, etc.), or even just turn tail when fighting seems futile (perhaps returning later with a better plan).

If a shield is in play, imagine how it works in the fiction; that 1 point of armor won’t help against attacks from the rear.

As you’re already doing with sundering, damaging their armor is one approach – it can add a lot to immersion when the fighter has to shell out silver to get their chainmail repaired back in town. But also, it’s okay to let armored characters feel invulnerable! If they’ve spent the hard cash to acquire some solid protection, let them have fun with it.

Also, I might have missed this but it doesn’t seem like there is an armor restriction for MUs? I use the awkward tag as a restriction to Cast Spell, so the best armor a MU can wear is chainmail. Is this intentionally left for the group to decide?

Correct, there are no restrictions on who can wear armor. It’s up to you to figure out how (if at all) armor impacts things like spellcasting or sneaking around. When a spellcaster botches a Cast Spell roll, it can be fun to take their armor into account when deciding on the negative effects.

I’m allowing characters to use Dexterity to fight with any type of weapon, thereby making the precise tag obsolete. Is this a bad idea? The fighter at our table insists on playing a Dexterity build and I don’t want to restrict the creativity there, as fighting dexterously with a mace seems reasonable to me.

I don’t know if it’s a “bad” idea, but the way DEX and STR interact with the weapon and combat rules is purposeful, in terms of the feel and creating distinction between different weapons and ability scores. Medieval weapons for the most part are generally really heavy – a mace is much slower to bring to bear than a dagger. Sure, hand-eye coordination and manual dexterity play a part in swinging a greatsword, but the rules are saying that on balance strength is more important when it comes to swinging heavy weapons.

If one of my players made that argument, I would tell them they need to seek out or commission a fine weapon that was lightweight and balanced, and even then would limit it to things that weren’t top-heavy. In my games DEX-focused fighters tend to favor missile weapons, which is by design (and one way toward building a ranger-type character). If it seems to be working for your table, though, great!

Cast Spell has been wild. The 3rd level MU in the party attempted to Cast Spell with +4 power from four components, thereby reaching spectacular effects with prolonged duration. It seemed broken at the time, so I ruled that only one component could be burned per spell (I’m thinking of introducing spell component +2, +3, etc. as rare finds to compensate for this). I also haven’t necessarily improvised the arcane incidents to the best degree. If anyone has examples of accidents tuned to minor and moderate spell effects, I’d love to hear them.

I would love to hear how your MU explained using 4 components! Although I am loathe to dictate too much, I might explicitly indicate that components are non-stackable, just as you ruled.

As far as accidents go, after clarifying a spell’s intended effect, I always ask a magic-user to describe what casting looks like, and consider other aspects of the fictional circumstances before riffing on 5- effects. For instance, when the aforementioned Cube of Truth was cast on that monster hunter, with the stated intent of testing her honesty, here are some examples:

5: Disruption! Mark Intelligence. The spell fails and you forget it, but arcane forces temporarily warp reality for the worse, in proportion to the spell’s intended effect.

The cube manifests as a blurry distortion of reality that hovers over the caster’s shoulder, creating a distracting nuisance with duration 3.

4: Disaster! Mark Intelligence. The spell fails and you forget it, but someone or something nearby (which might be you or an ally) suffers a permanent affliction or alteration of the Judge’s choosing, in proportion to the spell’s intended effect.

The victim’s tongue turns white, or, The victim can no longer tell white lies.

3-: Incursion! Mark Intelligence. The spell fails, you forget it, and some troublesome or dangerous arcane force is released into this world. Left unchecked, it will worsen.

The Cube escapes from the caster’s grasp and drifts away, to spread the question, “What is the nature of truth?” to all whom it touches.

[duffina]

As you’re already doing with sundering, damaging their armor is one approach – it can add a lot to immersion when the fighter has to shell out silver to get their chainmail repaired back in town. But also, it’s okay to let armored characters feel invulnerable! If they’ve spent the hard cash to acquire some solid protection, let them have fun with it.

For sure! It’s mostly been some lack of creativity on my part, and I’ll definitely think of the distinction between “intelligent” and the more “mindless” variety of monsters and how they would approach a scuffle. This is excellent advice, by the way - thank you so much.

With the armor, we’ve been experimenting to good effect with a sort of “armor scrap” feel to the fiction. The fighter almost instinctively knows how to patch up bits of exposed chain and the like, usually when they have some time to sit down. Sometimes the fighter can scrap enough from a fight to avoid having to wait for a visit to the town smithy.

If one of my players made that argument, I would tell them they need to seek out or commission a fine weapon that was lightweight and balanced, and even then would limit it to things that weren’t top-heavy. In my games DEX-focused fighters tend to favor missile weapons, which is by design (and one way toward building a ranger-type character). If it seems to be working for your table, though, great!

That’s excellent advice! To be honest I’ve been thinking of fine mostly in terms of “worth more silver than its average counterpart” rather than the more literal lightweight, more balanced, etc. I love the idea of lighter versions of maces and axes, though. They’d probably cost a decent amount more in coin. Maybe not for great weapons…

I would love to hear how your MU explained using 4 components! Although I am loathe to dictate too much, I might explicitly indicate that components are non-stackable, just as you ruled.

Haha…so they acquired a bottle of “troll’s wax” from the aforementioned peddler, and combined that with some goop they harvested before. When it came to it, they described slathering a bunch of this goop and wax on their hands before casting the spell (the player specified that they used up four portions of components for a +4). Fictionally, it was wonderful, so maybe I should let it slide and the potential of a particularly devastating arcane incident balance things out. I’m not sure yet.

5: Disruption! Mark Intelligence. The spell fails and you forget it, but arcane forces temporarily warp reality for the worse, in proportion to the spell’s intended effect.

The cube manifests as a blurry distortion of reality that hovers over the caster’s shoulder, creating a distracting nuisance with duration 3.

4: Disaster! Mark Intelligence. The spell fails and you forget it, but someone or something nearby (which might be you or an ally) suffers a permanent affliction or alteration of the Judge’s choosing, in proportion to the spell’s intended effect.

The victim’s tongue turns white, or, The victim can no longer tell white lies.

3-: Incursion! Mark Intelligence. The spell fails, you forget it, and some troublesome or dangerous arcane force is released into this world. Left unchecked, it will worsen.

The Cube escapes from the caster’s grasp and drifts away, to spread the question, “What is the nature of truth?” to all whom it touches.

These are wonderful and made me chuckle. Yeah, I’ll be referring to these effects and try and draft a few templates or something as a creative exercise. Would you ever let the MU decide the form of the incident, or is that more or less up to the Judge?

[jasonlutes]

Oh, I would totally invite suggestions! From everyone, but in particular the magic-user. That can be great way to get the ideas flowing, and then as Judge you just decide the final effect and describe how it manifests in the fiction.

[jasonlutes]

I am feeling the lack of the old Establish move from 1e, so I’m trying to incorporate player-created facts about the world into Know Something. I would love to hear opinions and editing suggestions:

KNOW SOMETHING
When you recall or declare something about a given subject, explain how you came by that recollection, or the reasoning behind your declaration. If the Judge buys your explanation, roll +INT: on a 10+, the Judge relates all relevant details about the subject, or confirms that your declaration is indeed true; on a 7-9, the Judge tells you something useful about the subject, or confirms your declaration with a caveat attached; on a 6-, mark Intelligence, and the Judge makes a move.

[Spyger]

Any particular reason not to simply make these two different moves? Apart from the 6- bit, everything is clearly split in two. Plus, I’m sure there are tables/campaigns that wouldn’t appreciate how much creative authority is granted to players via Establish. If the two moves are folded into one, it’s tougher for those Judges to houserule in order to maintain full control of their setting.

Another idea that comes to mind is that there could be Advanced Moves related to these. That becomes more difficult to implement if Know Something has this dual nature.

BTW, plans to play this week fell through. I cri evrytiem…

[jasonlutes]

Honestly, it’s a combination of wanting to save space and avoid move creep. But you’re right, it just feels bifurcated. It seems like there should be an elegant way to finesse a traditional “knowledge roll” to allow for player contributions, but I haven’t hit on it yet.

[Jeremy_Strandberg]

This seems really close to an earlier version of Spout Lore in Dungeon World, as discussed here. That earlier text was:

When you take some time to share your knowledge about something , tell the GM a few things you know about it and roll+INT. On a 10+, the GM will clarify your knowledge – adding details, dispelling untrue facts, and making useful and interesting information clear to you. On a 7-9, the GM will confirm a single true and useful fact about the subject. On a miss, the GM will give you information that is dangerously wrong. If you act on this incorrect knowledge as if it was true, or convince others to do so, mark xp.

And here’s Adam Koebel’s assessment of that version of the move:

This is the problem I had, in game - “Spout Lore doesn’t let the player invent what’s in the dungeon, it lets them expound on what they think it means or where it came from or what it might do (as players are wont to do) and then, depending on the roll, get their ideas confirmed, clarified, or revised according to the DM’s prep.”

Emphasis mine. The players are always going to use this version of Spout Lore to say things like “Oh, well, shit, of course these monsters are totally susceptible to Magic Missiles. It’s their one true weakness!” and even on a 10+ the GM is going to “clarify” with “Nope, that’s wrong, you’re thinking of some other monster.” and on we go. The move did basically nothing.

I feel like what we’re trying to force with the current Spout Lore is better handled by the GM just remembering to Leave Blanks and Ask Questions because if they’re doing their job correctly, they’re letting the players contribute flavor anyway.

and then later:

In Dungeon World, you get to say stuff about your character. What they think, how they feel and who they are. The GM gets to say stuff about everything else.

Players don’t get to say “Trolls are weak to ice magic.” to the GM just like the GM doesn’t get to say “You hate all elves.” to a player.

And I think that’s a pretty on-point criticism of the “have players make stuff up” approach. In a game that privileges the GM with authority over the world, any move that gives the player permission to make up facts will have to be subject to a GM veto.

I think that this version of Know Something avoids a lot of the problems that the old Spout Lore had, mostly by giving the GM veto power before the roll is even made. But I also agree that it feels a little weird as both an “ask for info” and “declare info, test for truth” move.

Two other things jump to mind:

1. The couple times I played Freebooters with you, with the Establish move in place, I noticed that a player would often end up declaring a fact, but we wouldn’t actually roll until that truth was put to the test. But the move text never said to do that. I think if you wanted to put Establish back in as its own thing, it’d be a much stronger and distinctive move if that was baked right in. Something like:

When you declare some fact about the world, and the Judge agrees that it might be true, tell us how you came to believe this. When your declared fact is first put to the test (now or later), roll +INT: on a 10+, it’s just like you said; on a 7-9, you were right, but the Judge will add some caveat or complication that you hadn’t foreseen or that you hoped wasn’t true; on a 6-, mark Intelligence, and the Judge makes a move.

2. To prevent move bloat and save space, I wonder if you could combine the current 2e version of Know Something with the Perceive move. Both moves involve the player asking questions about the GM and getting honest answers. So perhaps something like this?

GET ANSWERS
When you ponder the situation, by investigating, paying close attention, or pouring over your memories, ask the GM a question and roll +WIS: on a 10+, the Judge will provide a clear and helpful answer, including some clarifications and follow-up questions; on a 7-9, the Judge will give you a cryptic or incomplete answer, but will tell you how you could learn more. On a 6-, mark Wisdom, and the GM makes a move.

This could work equally well for:

• “I think back to my days in University… what do I know about the Cult of the Reptile Gods?” (10+ >> info dump; 7-9 >> partial info and you could learn more by writing your old professor).
• “I’ll toss the room, opening drawers, knocking on walls, flipping bookcases. What here is useful or valuable to me?” (10+ >> find the secret door and the trigger to open it; 7-9 >> find the secret door, but not the trigger… you could spend another 1 duration looking, or find one of the cultists and beat it out of them)
• “I peer out into the darkness, holding my breath and listening intently. What should I be on the lookout for?” (10+ the four snake men slithering up on your camp! 7-9 something is approaching, more than one… kind of a rasping noise. You could learn more by tossing a light out into the darkness.)

This has the downside of making WIS both the “perceive” stat and the “recall lore” stat. But, honestly, I kind of like the idea that the Cleric (and to a lesser extent the Fighter) were good and asking the GM for things the know, or ways to learn more, whereas the Wizard (and to a lesser extent the Thief) are all about being sure they know something and acting on it and then finding out whether they were right or wrong.

[jasonlutes]

Great suggestions Jeremy, thanks. That’s a smart way to break it up into two distinct moves without adding another move to the overall menu, and helps knock me out of my conceptual rut. “Poring over memories” is totally an INT thing for me, though, hmm… I need to mull this over for a while.

[Jeremy_Strandberg]

You’ve already got precedence for multi-stat moves, so maybe…

GET ANSWERS
When you ponder the situation, ask the GM a question and roll…
…+WIS if you’re paying close attention or investigating
…+INT if you’re pouring over your memories
…+CHA if you’re engaging in conversation or asking around
On a 10+ , the Judge will provide a clear and helpful answer, including some clarifications and follow-up questions; on a 7-9 , the Judge will give you a cryptic or incomplete answer, but will tell you how you could learn more. On a 6- , mark the ability used, and the GM makes a move.

[jasonlutes]

Thanks Jeremy, these are great suggestions – I’m going to fold them into the next playtest!

[Maezar]

I’m enjoying this discussion about Spout Lore and its cousin moves. For my GM-less game, I went in completely the opposite version: “Establish” does exactly what it says on the tin: creates facts from thin air, solidifies hunches as correct… or not. It can’t contradict established truths, and you’re all supposed to “work together to say what it is” before you try to establish something. Note 1: You can justify rolling this with +Int, +Wis, or even +Cha depending on how the knowledge/insight was gained. Note 2: Many times during games of all types, you’ll hear someone say, “My character doesn’t know this but…”. When justifiable, this move can in fact transfer knowledge from a player to a character!

[jasonlutes]

Here’s how the moves read in the updated playtest doc:

ESTABLISH
When you introduce a potential fact and the Judge agrees that it might be true, say how you heard about it. When its truth is tested (now or later), roll +INT: on a 10+, it’s just as you say; on a 7-9, you were right, but there’s a caveat or complication of the Judge’s choosing; on a 6-, mark Intelligence, and the Judge makes a move.

FIND ANSWERS
When you seek more information than is readily apparent, ask the GM a question and roll…

…+WIS to study something carefully
…+INT to search your memory
…+CHA to ask around

On a 10+, the Judge gives you a clear and thorough answer, and you may ask follow-up questions; on a 7-9, the Judge’s answer is cryptic or incomplete, but there’s probably some way to learn more; on a 6-, mark the ability used, and the Judge makes a move.

[Jeremy_Strandberg]

Noice!

on a 7-9 , the Judge’s answer is cryptic or incomplete, but there’s probably some way to learn more;

I do think the 7-9 on Find Answers would be better if the GM was specifically required to tell you how you could learn more. It engineers the conversation in a really productive way, I think. It means that every 7-9 result ends with the GM telling them what’s required or offering an opportunity, thus providing at least one (hopefully interesting) path forward.

Whereas, as written, the 7-9 result could get you a kind of vague, unsatisfying answer with no clear follow-up. I can even see the conversation going something like “Well, I study it harder? What do you mean by __?” and immediately triggering the same move again, which doesn’t seem great.

[nekroz]

Just read the latest update. I very like new(old) ESTABLISH and FIND ANSWERS. My players appreciates new class table (too many fighters in old one), new neutral alignment goal and cleric cause instead belief. New adventuring gear nicely expands its capabilities. New Learn from your mistakes match with my own homerule.
Some typos found: Learn from your mistakes and mark ability is duplicate each other, dwarf heritage move and book description links to old name of moves.
BTW, why bedroll dont give bonus HP/ability point on rest? It will small, but nice bonus.

[Spyger]

Woo, updates!

Love the new intro. Only part that was odd/off-putting is in the second paragraph: “th Judge, whose job is to know the rules” Firstly, typo on “th”. Secondly, not a fan of perpetuating the notion that it’s specifically the GM’s job to know the rules, even if that’s closer to truth in PbtA games than most.

The new Help or Hinder seems excessively wordy; especially the first sentence. “explain how your actions could feasibly affect the outcome before they roll any dice” could simply be, “explain how you do so (before they roll).”

Establish and Find Answers seem much more inspired than Know Something and Perceive (which was especially dry). A 7-9 on Find Answers does seem less beneficial than on Know Something though, as there’s no guarantee of “something useful”. Like Jeremy, I think there’s room for improvement on that second clause.

Also on Find Answers, the ability triggers seem a little odd to me. “to study something carefully” sounds like Intelligence, not Wisdom. My instinct looks more like this:
+WIS to sense or discern
+INT to recall or study
+CHA to make an inquiry

The cleric point on Wrap Up seems to be in need of an update. Currently reads, “if you solved a problem by acting on your belief.”

I see the Veteran change for Fighter, but it doesn’t really math out. My criticism before was that taking +1 Mettle at 3rd level would just raise your max from 4 to 5 (level+1+1). With this new version, if you have +2 CON/WIS then that is still the case because you switch from Mettle=level+1 to Mettle=level+2. Only if you have an 18 is this version a buff, and if you don’t have a 16 then Veteran becomes moot or actually bad!

Hooray for the Evade update. Again though, it reads a bit like legalese. I’m not even sure what a “proportionate degree” would be. “or mitigate non-damaging effects (within the Judge’s discretion)” seems like plenty. Now that I think about it, why even fuss over degrees of consequences? The thief is totally forgoing their own attacks, spending Cunning, and making Evade one of their few advanced moves just to partially soften an incoming attack? Seems like a really bad deal to me. IMO, their Cunning tells them that the Fight isn’t going to go as planned, so they can evade before getting in too deep.

As long as we’re thinking about non-damaging effects though, we might consider Deflect Blows and Shieldbearer. In fact, each of these moves mitigate damage to a similar or greater degree than Evade, but require either forgoing your attack or spending your class resource… Anyway I think Shieldbearer is good as it’s specifically triggered by damage, but Deflect Blows could probably use something like you wrote for Evade.

Love the change on Pray. That makes perfect sense. Cool to see the permanent invocations come back as an advanced move.

---

I was checking out some of the earlier discussion on this thread, and it reminded me of some fiddling I was doing with Heritage moves. Three of the races have clearly active, mechanical moves, while elves have a sort of passive characteristic. I think it would be neat for each Heritage to have one of each, though that might be too much as the default. Here are some moves I brainstormed:

Wood Elf: When you are in the wilds, take +1 ongoing to Perceive and Stay Sharp. (RIP Perceive)
High Elf: Take +1 ongoing to Know Something about magic.
Dwarf: When your feet are planted, you can stand against any mortal force.
Halfling: When you Pass Time or Pass the Night, you heal 1 point of Luck. (More halfling than hobbit, and DCC is the best!)

I don’t have anything for Human, but their move reminds me about leveling up. Might it be more appropriate to mark abilities on each level up instead of just the even levels? As it stands, leveling all the way up to 10 will yield 10 marks, or 2 full Ability points. Just 2 points from the full leveling curve seems pretty stingy, especially when starting with 3d6 and when actual modifiers are 2-4 points apart.

I also like the idea of switching HP rolls to odd levels, and advanced moves to even levels. My favorite part of any campaign is the very beginning, when PCs are hardly a match for goblins or zombies, orcs are horrifying, and dragons are gods. I’m sure I don’t have to explain the difference in D&D player behavior at 1st level when any die roll could mean death, and 3rd level where they have significant breathing room. So why grant freebooters another hit die after just 10xp? That’s likely a mere 2 sessions.

And there’s a factor coming from the other direction as well: advanced moves at 2nd level would mean players can specialize their class beyond the basic template much more quickly. I was compelled to grant players an advanced move to start with, because level 3 is a long time to wait for that one special move you want, or for the two fighters/clerics/whatever to get unique abilities.

Swapping the levels would also mean ending up with 5 hit dice and 5 advanced moves, instead of 6 hit dice and 4 advanced moves. Beautiful symmetry!

[jasonlutes]

Thanks for catching the typos, @nekroz, I appreciate it. I am wavering on the bedroll thing because I’m leery of mechanizing too much. I am always tempted to mechanize the resource management and survival aspects of play, but right now I feel like the fictional significance of a bedroll is more interesting than a numerical bonus.

[jasonlutes]

I see the Veteran change for Fighter, but it doesn’t really math out. My criticism before was that taking +1 Mettle at 3rd level would just raise your max from 4 to 5 (level+1+1). With this new version, if you have +2 CON/WIS then that is still the case because you switch from Mettle=level+1 to Mettle=level+2. Only if you have an 18 is this version a buff, and if you don’t have a 16 then Veteran becomes moot or actually bad!

Doh! Totally didn’t think that through, thanks. Will change.

IMO, their Cunning tells them that the Fight isn’t going to go as planned, so they can evade before getting in too deep.

Good point, I think I’ll change it to “avoid the enemy’s attack entirely.”

I don’t have anything for Human, but their move reminds me about leveling up. Might it be more appropriate to mark abilities on each level up instead of just the even levels? As it stands, leveling all the way up to 10 will yield 10 marks, or 2 full Ability points. Just 2 points from the full leveling curve seems pretty stingy, especially when starting with 3d6 and when actual modifiers are 2-4 points apart.

My kneejerk is that you’ll also be marking abilities during play by rolling 6-, so the level-up marks are meant to supplement that, but point taken, I’ll consider this.

I also like the idea of switching HP rolls to odd levels, and advanced moves to even levels. My favorite part of any campaign is the very beginning, when PCs are hardly a match for goblins or zombies, orcs are horrifying, and dragons are gods . I’m sure I don’t have to explain the difference in D&D player behavior at 1st level when any die roll could mean death, and 3rd level where they have significant breathing room. So why grant freebooters another hit die after just 10xp? That’s likely a mere 2 sessions.

Agreed, I have been thinking about this for while. I’ll make the swap for the next update!

[ocamlmycaml]

My group just upgraded from FotF 1e to FotF 2e. The cleric was very happy; she’s a big fan of the new rules which give the cleric a bit more meat / guidance on what they can do.