[DF] DF13 - Loadouts Errata thread

[ericbsmith]

This is a complex book, there's bound to be errata all over the place. I've found a couple minor bits as I go over some of the Loadouts. I'm submitting through the Errata Report Page in addition to listing them here.


p. 9, Spear Barbarian. Fine Spear; a Spear has a base cost of $40, Fine adds +3 CF, making base cost $160. x1.5 for Oversized makes the final cost $240, not $180. I don't think they changed the x1.5 to into +0.5CF (which wouldn't make sense). The SM+0 Loadout is $40 short when including the correct cost of a Fine Spear ($80 + $90 + $160 = $330, not $290).

p. 9, Wandering Minstrel Bard. It looks like while making the loadout someone copied the Courtly Bard Loadout then changed the Leather Armor (which doesn't cover the Arms) into a Leather Jack (which covers the Arms) but forgot to remove the Cloth Sleeves. The Cloth Sleeves are somewhat redundant in this loadout.

[Kromm]

Fine adds +2 CF for crushing-only or impaling-only weapons, not +3 CF as asserted (that's for swords). The spear is thus correct: $40, +2 CF for fine impaling-only, is $120. With the SM adjustment, it's $180.

[ericbsmith]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Fine adds +2 CF for crushing-only or impaling-only weapons, not +3 CF as asserted (that's for swords). The spear is thus correct: $40, +2 CF for fine impaling-only, is $120. With the SM adjustment, it's $180.

That would explain the discrepancy. Apparently the GCA Data File was wrong, and then I checked DF1 and looked right past that somehow.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by ericbsmith

p. 9, Wandering Minstrel Bard. It looks like while making the loadout someone copied the Courtly Bard Loadout then changed the Leather Armor (which doesn't cover the Arms) into a Leather Jack (which covers the Arms) but forgot to remove the Cloth Sleeves. The Cloth Sleeves are somewhat redundant in this loadout.

TBC has already said this was intentional.

[Rasputin]

Barbarian loadouts, pp. 8-9: The SMs for barbarians should go:

-5 (pixies)
-3 (leprechauns)
-1 (halflings)
+0 (gnomes)
+1 (humans, dwarves, elves, most others)
+2 (ogres)

They're all going to be one SM larger due to Gigantism.

[zoncxs]

Originally Posted by Rasputin

Barbarian loadouts, pp. 8-9: The SMs for barbarians should go:

-5 (pixies)
-3 (leprechauns)
-1 (halflings)
+0 (gnomes)
+1 (humans, dwarves, elves, most others)
+2 (ogres)

They're all going to be one SM larger due to Gigantism.

barbarians have SM+1

so for them everything is made at Sm+1

taking anything they would get and shrinking it down to a pixie means dropping it by 6 SM or to SM -6. then, -4 and -2, -1, and O for themselves.


those loadouts assume +1 sm

[Bruno]

SM -6 pixies with Gigantism have SM -5. Gigantism is a required disadvantage on the Barbarian template.

[ericbsmith]

Originally Posted by Bruno

SM -6 pixies with Gigantism have SM -5. Gigantism is a required disadvantage on the Barbarian template.

And, of course, Barbarian Ogres have SM+2.

One of the problems is that DF1 & DF3, in an attempt to keep things simple, didn't include rules for scaling to SM-5, SM-3, or SM+2. Of course, a small box could have easily added these SM's to Loadouts.

[Captain-Captain]

Originally Posted by Bruno

SM -6 pixies with Gigantism have SM -5. Gigantism is a required disadvantage on the Barbarian template.

[foxworthy]If your human barbarian is 5'2" you might be a Muphy's Rules [/foxworthy]

[Kuroshima]

Originally Posted by ericbsmith

And, of course, Barbarian Ogres have SM+2.

One of the problems is that DF1 & DF3, in an attempt to keep things simple, didn't include rules for scaling to SM-5, SM-3, or SM+2. Of course, a small box could have easily added these SM's to Loadouts.

Yeah, too bad :( fortunately, as it's a PDF, not all is lost, they could add errata to it, and put the box at the end, with the e23 blurb.