Chaos & Catacombs

[Conrad]

Birdbears, or maybe BearOwls?

Beakbears or scarebears...

[Mechashef]

I think it was , um, er, Chaosium

I thought it might have been, but didn't really know.

Thanks

[threedeesix]

Yup. And Melnibonean.

Yup again. Latest I heard, they just wanted a "By kind permission of Chaosium" statement - and got it in the next printing. But then a later editor didn't want to give a credit to a rival company, so took them out. But forgot to take out the credit statement!

And may I suggest "Ocular Tyrant" instead of just plain Tyrant? (Assuming it is "That Thing With The Eyes" TM, Order of the Stick...)

Thanks for the suggestion, I like it and will use it. :thumb:

[Camillus]

The end result is that I have no intention on using any name that is copyright WOTC. The big question I have is just what that is and isnt. I have changed names on any critters that I felt may need it and will continue to do so.

Now, what should I call my owl bears?

Rod

Copyright doesn't exist on names so you can use the names of D&D creatures safe in the knowledge that you won't be breaching WoTC's copyright. Copyright only applies to the representation of an idea and protects against the wholesale copying of work, and against the production of works that are clearly so closely derived from the original that they're copies in all but name.

The relevant thing with names is trademark and the question there is whether Wizards have the trademark on a name or not. You can in fact search for registered trademaks in the US using the USPTO database. However it is possible that WoTC have applied for a trademark on a name but that it hasn't been granted yet, that might not show up on a simple search. A search for owl bear and owlbear doesn' show up any trademark.

The main difference between copyright and trademarks when it comes to lawyers getting involved is that trademarks must be defended. If you allow people to use a TM without going after them you can potentially lose that trademark. With copyright you don't have to defend it and can choose to ignore a publication without your work entering the public domain as far as the law is concerned.

[ORtrail]

What about, the Whobear?

"YEAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!"

[frogspawner]

Thanks for the suggestion, I like it and will use it. :thumb:

You're welcome. Any chance of shoe-horning Killer Frogs into the list...?

[threedeesix]

You're welcome. Any chance of shoe-horning Killer Frogs into the list...?

I've contemplated "spawning" giant toads as they are a common "low-level" monster from several classic modules like the moat house from Village of Hommlet. Would that be close enough?

Rod

[frogspawner]

Sorry, but it really should be a Killer (as in, "Temple of the...") Frog. There's nothing more classic than Blackmoor.

[threedeesix]

Sorry, but it really should be a Killer (as in, "Temple of the...") Frog. There's nothing more classic than Blackmoor.

Actually, the entire subject needs its own supplement. "The Ecology of the Frog", going into detail on the typical giant frog and covering everything up to and including frog deities, frog spell casters, fire breathing frogs, Frog Valhalla, etc. It would be the definitive source of information of frog gaming in any system. Included would be characteristics for the Type I through Type VII Killer Frog.

[frogspawner]

Hmmm, 'frog gaming'... as per that other classic Bunnies & Burrows... one day, perhaps...

[dragonewt]

Beakbears or scarebears...

For the nostalgic, click the link for this article:

Stupid Monsters someone was paid to make

The monster section also needs flumphs (found in part two of the article).

And "Land Sharks" with... oh, never mind. :innocent:

Edited May 8, 2009 by dragonewt

[dragonewt]

You're welcome. Any chance of shoe-horning Killer Frogs into the list...?

Can we also have the Giant Vampire Frog?

[Conrad]

For the nostalgic, click the link for this article:

Stupid Monsters someone was paid to make

The monster section also needs flumphs (found in part two of the article).

And "Land Sharks" with... oh, never mind. :innocent:

Nice article, thanks for linking to it Dragonewt:D

I'm thinking what we'd get if we crossed a Dyll with a female deer. Would it be a Dylldoe?>:->

The Flumph picture, in the second part of the article, looks good. I'm going to have to put some stats to the creature and let my players meet this weird pancake beast!:eek:

The Hurgeon reminds me of an old fantasy game that had giant killer penguins and hedgehogs, and elephant men in it. I think it was called Dragon Roar.:confused:

Edited May 8, 2009 by Conrad

[threedeesix]

For the nostalgic, click the link for this article:

Stupid Monsters someone was paid to make

The monster section also needs flumphs (found in part two of the article).

And "Land Sharks" with... oh, never mind. :innocent:

Thanks for this article, it reinforces the reasons I want to add so many of these monsters to my book in the first place.

As I got looking at the various pictures and reading about combining part of a vicious creature with part of a harmless one, an image came to mind of a squirrelbear. Giant bear body, squirrel head (actual size).

Edit: While the idea came to mind, as the book is no longer parody, rest assured that it will not be included.

Rod

[NickofChaosium]

Would i be able to fight with a weapon in each hand? If im playing a fighter in brp i have to be a berserker...who needs a shield when you have a spare arm anyway?

Nick

Chaosium Inc. - Nick Nacario - Nick Nacario

[threedeesix]

Would i be able to fight with a weapon in each hand? If im playing a fighter in brp i have to be a berserker...who needs a shield when you have a spare arm anyway?

Nick

Technically you can fight with a weapon in both hands in BRP already, you just don't get two atacks. There were rules for performing a Reposte in previous editions of BRP. This gave you an extra attack with the off hand weapon when you scored a Special success with a Parry (if I remember right).

I have included this rule in Classic Fantasy Volume 1 as a Spot Rule.

Rod

[threedeesix]

As the game has changed so much from the time that this thread was started more than a year ago, including several name changes, I have sarted a new thread at http://basicroleplaying.com/forum/basic-roleplaying/1514-brp-classic-fantasy-sword-spell.html

Please continue on to that thread when posting comments. Thank you.

Rod

Edited August 1, 2009 by threedeesix

[soltakss]

Technically you can fight with a weapon in both hands in BRP already, you just don't get two atacks.

Is that right? Hmmm. I've done a little bit of martial arts and a little bit of LARPing and in both I can fight with 2 weapons and can attack with both.

So, if I (a useless fighter) can do it in real life then it follows that ...

There were rules for performing a Reposte in previous editions of BRP. This gave you an extra attack with the off hand weapon when you scored a Special success with a Parry (if I remember right).

BRP should not need a special rule to allow two-weapon fighting. I'll have to check my rules to see if it really is not allowed.

[threedeesix]

BRP should not need a special rule to allow two-weapon fighting. I'll have to check my rules to see if it really is not allowed.

Please do. I hope i'm wrong on this point.

Rod

Edited August 2, 2009 by threedeesix

[threedeesix]

Please do. I hope i'm wrong on this point.

Rod

Your right. RQ3 allows it, but (if I remember right, Stormbringer and the new BRP rules do not). I believe Stormbringer uses the Reposte rules. I just have to decide which I want to use in Classic Fantasy.

Thanks for giving me options.

Rod

[RosenMcStern]

BRP should not need a special rule to allow two-weapon fighting. I'll have to check my rules to see if it really is not allowed.

Unfortunately, there are no real advantages for a two weapon user in the new BRP. It is one of the (very few) points where I find it lacking. The advantage should not be so devastating as it used to be in RQ3, but there should be one.

[Charles Green]

Unfortunately, there are no real advantages for a two weapon user in the new BRP. It is one of the (very few) points where I find it lacking. The advantage should not be so devastating as it used to be in RQ3, but there should be one.

I intend of having one in Dragon Lines. Too many martial arts use two-weapon fighting to go without.

I recall there being some two-weapon rules in the BRP book, but I'll have to check to be sure.

[threedeesix]

Unfortunately, there are no real advantages for a two weapon user in the new BRP. It is one of the (very few) points where I find it lacking. The advantage should not be so devastating as it used to be in RQ3, but there should be one.

Ok, after discussing it with my playtesters, I have decided to continue with using the Riposte rules for Classic Fantasy.

First, we feel that if using two weapons gives a second attack it will become to commonplace, with everyone using two weapons.

Second, watch a combatant using two weapons. Normally he or she is just alternating swings. If your alternating swings your not attacking any faster than swinging with one weapon. And the length of the round is irrelevant, call it a 3 second round if you want.

With the riposte, the secondary weapon is mainly there for defense. An alternate weapon if the first is dropped or broken. The riposte rules just give a nice secondary effect on a special success parry granting a free attack. To me thats less overpowering than doubling the number attacks in the round your party can make because everyone has decided to fight with two weapons.

Obviously, everyone will continue to use the rules they have been using regardless of what I choose for Classic Fantasy, and thats whats great about BRP in the first place, but if I have choose one method, I'm going with the riposte rules.

Rod

[The Venomous Pao]

Ok, after discussing it with my playtesters, I have decided to continue with using the Riposte rules for Classic Fantasy.

<snip>

Obviously, everyone will continue to use the rules they have been using regardless of what I choose for Classic Fantasy, and thats whats great about BRP in the first place, but if I have choose one method, I'm going with the riposte rules.

This makes the most sense to me. I'm an inveterate "dual wielding" kind of guy but it's always problematic. I do believe this solves it nicely for the reasons you outlined above.

I just wish that the riposte rules had been included in the lovely new BRP (and I wonder why they weren't). It's a shame that folks who don't have access to Elric! or another source of that rule. Granted, it's an easy rule to implement once you know about it, but those folks quite likely won't ever know about it. At least until the badassness that will be Classic Fantasy comes out

[Jason D]

I just wish that the riposte rules had been included in the lovely new BRP (and I wonder why they weren't).

Simple oversight.

I thought they were in there.