The OFFICIAL FtA! Q&A

[RPGPundit]

I didn't include any entry for an Ice Elemental, that's true. I would imagine that on a practical level they'd work like an Earth Elemental.

In the druid list, it doesn't say "plant elemental" it says "animal or plant spirit".  The Unicorn is presented as an example of an animal spirit. You could also adjust the Roc down to 16HD or adjust a Treeman up to 16HD for other examples.

RPGPundit

[Sean]

Hi Pundit, How far are you from finishing the FtA!GN ?

[Skyrock]

I'm not Pundit, but he announced on his blog that his part of work is done.
Everything else is in the illustrating, layouting and distributing hands of Clash, and how long that takes... I have no clue, but high hopes that it won't stand too long between me and FTA!GN.

[RPGPundit]

Yup, the timetable depends on Clash. I'm hoping he'll have it ready in time for Gencon.

RPGPundit

[flyingmice]

Yup, the timetable depends on Clash. I'm hoping he'll have it ready in time for Gencon.

RPGPundit

I'm shooting for that as a target.

[Skyrock]

It's time for the very first FTA!GN! question...

Lizardmen have a natural DR of 5.
Can they also add external armor to that? If they do, do they add their DRs, or does only the highest value count (as in the case of Defence spell 3: Shield)?

[Skyrock]

It's time for the very first FTA!GN! question...

Lizardmen have a natural DR of 5.
Can they also add external armor to that? If they do, do they add their DRs, or does only the highest value count (as in the case of Defence spell 3: Shield)?

[RPGPundit]

It's time for the very first FTA!GN! question...

Lizardmen have a natural DR of 5.
Can they also add external armor to that? If they do, do they add their DRs, or does only the highest value count (as in the case of Defence spell 3: Shield)?

I left that matter open to GMs. In my own games, I would suggest that Lizardmen could not wear body armour, but could wear helms or use shields.

RPGPundit

[Skyrock]

Good news first: The German review of FTA!GN! should be done by Sunday (text is now complete, the only remaining taks on my to-do list are trimming and proofreading), and the English version should follow within 2 weeks after its submission.


Now, one thing I trimmed is a lengthy evaluation of the "Monster PAS checks vs. Magic"-rule on p.43, as I have length issues and couldn't afford to waste around 300 words on a single issue.
Here's the criticism as originally inserted by me into the review:

Rather strange seemed to me finally the errata about monsters and their PAS saving throw versus spells, which was squeazed in as an aside. First, my opinion is that errata for basic parts of the game belong into the public so that they are also usable for the original buyers of the MRB, not hidden in some for-pay-supplement.
Moreover, I have doubts that the rule change works as intended. What it offers in the end is a bonus for higher-HD monsters versus lower-level wizards amounting to the difference in level. The reasoning for this is that the attribute bonus isn't calculated in the monster's PAS.

That takes me wonder for several reasons:
1.) The monster bonus works 1:1 in a linear fashion. PCs, however, only gain one attribute point every three levels, turning this into a 1:3 relation. Moreover, the PC's attribute bonus would have to be allocated to one of the six attributes - so assuming an equal spread, only all 18 levels the resistance versus spells would be improved by attribute changes alone.
2.) At least over 11 levels difference, the bonus is greater than the whole attribute range (-5 to +5 results in eleven possible values), thus breaking the basic assumptions of the game.
3.) I always assumed that monster PAS already includes a flat bonus for attributes and skills, as it is higher than the PAS of a warrior PC of the same level, with special exceptions already included in the monster description (like the Wereswine's cowardice and the resulting penalty for morale checks). Therefore, this errata seems redundant.
4.) If the attribute isn't yet accounted in monster PAS: Why does it then only count in saving throws versus spells? What about stunts, which are also resisted by PAS + attribute?

Either way, this rule is either redundant to existing calculations, or it goes too short and excludes the stunting issue, so that it can't be recommended as written.

I'm yet curious about the thoughts behind this rule and why it is the way it is (1:1 progression, applying only to spells and not to stunts), so that I'm entering it here rather than letting it go to waste.

[RPGPundit]

Well, It was largely a throwaway issue regarding some players' thoughts that monsters were just too vulnerable to spellcasting after a certain level. A similar argument has also been made about stunts, one player claiming that stunts mean that a high-level rogue is easily the most powerful character in the game, and by the time a rogue gets to around level 15, there isn't a single monster in the book that can oppose him.

My feeling was that this was overstated on both counts, but I wanted to give the idea that this sort of fix could be implemented if GMs wanted monsters to be more resistant to PC ability.

RPGPundit

[Skyrock]

So it's purely optional? That changes the picture. It seemed to me rather like a mandatory errata.

[RPGPundit]

Nothing in FtA! is mandatory, much less in FtA!GN!

RPGPundit

[maeschda]

if the attacker is shooting the defender in the back, the defender suffers a -4 penalty.

This implies there's a kind of facing in the combat system although i can't find any rules for rotary motion or back-stabbing. How should i understand this penalty?

[RPGPundit]

Well, with the ranged attack system, things like being aware of the attack and facing or cover can be easily taken into account.

With the melee system, either an opponent is completely unaware, in which case he won't be rolling any melee dice and will likely be butchered, or he is aware, and then if you want to try some kind of special "backstab" maneuver you'd be better off trying to handle that as a stunt.

RPGPundit

[maeschda]

Thanks for your help last time.

Here's another question:

Most monsters have a much better damage bonus than the recommended natural wapons or usual melee weapons would provide although there are no multiple arms described.

It seems that the equipment quality grows with the hd-value of a monster. If i'm right: What are appropriate equipment bonuses (damage, dr) for every hit dice an average monster with no other special powers should have?