Let's read: Old-School Essentials - Advanced Fantasy Genre Rules

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
Anyway, my point is that gnomes are a bargain on the XP scale. More importantly, though, is the fact that they seem fun to play and they have a nice theme. I like the idea of a very "fae" race that fills the role of a sneaky trickster. These guys are definitely not built for the front line, but their equipment options make them a bit tougher than a typical magic-user.

I like gnomes in their original trickster, animal talking mode. I think gnome archetype got muddied by Dragonlance with its tinker gnomes. My main issue there is that dwarves were already had the craftsman archetype. It basically made gnomes into sillier dwarves.

I think the duergar is currently my favorite and the gnome is in second place.

It's definitely an improvement. Right now, I feel like half-elves are on the right side of generic, but what you describe tips towards lackluster.
Thing is, with race-as-class, it's all about the archetype, and half-elf is one of the more potent ones.
It does seem the main reason to play elves is the roleplaying appeal of being between two-worlds. As a split between the default race (humans) and elves, you can't really make them particularly distinctive. They're elves, but quite as elfy.

I seem to remember 3E giving them some kind of diplomatic edge as a way to add distinctiveness, but that didn't work well for people that wanted to play an outsider with no place in either society.

I think the OSE approach is probably best. It doesn't provide a strong mechanical reason to take it, but its a solid class for people that want to play a half-elf for role-playing reasons.

Half-orcs are an easier class to make distinct as their is no orc class for it to get caught between. They get to be their own thing. I do like the idea of reskinning them as some kind of thug class.
 
Thing is, with race-as-class, it's all about the archetype, and half-elf is one of the more potent ones.
I have to admit that I'm not acquainted with this archetype.
I think gnome archetype got muddied by Dragonlance with its tinker gnomes. My main issue there is that dwarves were already had the craftsman archetype. It basically made gnomes into sillier dwarves.
"Sillier dwarves" is a good way of putting it. I think some of it goes back before DL because you can see the overlap with underground architecture from the start. It's like dwarves dig in rock and gnomes dig through soil. I think that OSE does a good job of straddling the past with a good interpretation for the gnome.
It does seem the main reason to play elves is the roleplaying appeal of being between two-worlds.
You'd think that half-orcs would be even better for this, but elves are sexier.

I do like the idea of reskinning them as some kind of thug class.
I'd probably rather play that than a half-orc just because it's easier to get a handle on.

All this talk of demi-humans reminded me of how you never see half-elf/half-dwarves or quarterlings, and a funny idea occurred to me: what if the strange property of humans in a fantasy setting is their interfecundity? Only humans can couple with demi-humans to produce semi-demi-humans. I'm not sure exactly sure where to take it from there, but it's a fun idea for me..
 
I have to admit that I'm not acquainted with this archetype.

Elrond Half-Elven and Arwen Evenstar from LotR, Tanis Half-Elven from Dragonlance, Orion from King of Elfland's Daughter ... as Baulderstone says, it's the "oh woes I is trapped between two worlds" groove.

"Sillier dwarves" is a good way of putting it. I think some of it goes back before DL because you can see the overlap with underground architecture from the start. It's like dwarves dig in rock and gnomes dig through soil. I think that OSE does a good job of straddling the past with a good interpretation for the gnome.

The rock/soil angle is exactly how I play dwarves and gnomes. The gnomes don't understand the dwarven obsession with dead stone--it's live soil and everything that lives in it that interests them.
 
Essentially it's the lithic equivalent of the bull shark/great white shark/goblin shark distribution in the water column.
 
Part V: Classes (continued)

We're finally closing in on the end of the classes. After this, there are only two left to wrap up (ranger and svirfneblin) before we get to the optional race/class split. Let's dive right in!

Illusionist
Illusionists were one of the initial AD&D sub-classes, present in the Player's Handbook from the beginning. I believe that they were gone by 2e, being subsumed into the school-based system. But illusion magic was always the most interesting school, so I'm glad that OSE brought it over. Let's start with the antecedent.

There's really not much to say here. Illusionists have a slightly gentler XP curve than magic-users (2250 XP for second level instead of 2500 XP), and they cast illusions. They progress in spell slots at a slightly different rate than magic-users; a tiny bit slower at low levels but faster at higher levels. Of course, their spells have a bit less punch, and the text even admits as much.

OSE illusionists are even simpler - they are basically magic-users with a different spell list. Level progression is the same, the hit die, THAC0 and saving throws are the same, the allowable weapons and armor (dagger and a robe, losers!) are the same. The number of spells they get for each spell level are the same. There's really no mechanical difference other than the spell list.

The verdict
That makes this an easy verdict for me. On one hand, I would argue that illusionist spells tend to be weaker than magic-user spells. On the other hand, I love the subtlety and trickery of this form of magic. One of my favorite changes that Lamentations of the Flame Princess made over D&D was to drop fireball and lightning bolt from the spell list. So you know I'm on board.

It's not a mechanically exciting class, but it's well-balanced, faithful to the original and nicely thematic. The only thing I would change would be to adopt the slightly lower XP costs of the original, but that's a minor thing (and easy to do on your own). I'd also have to take a closer look at the spell list before I committed to that, because I could be wrong.

Knight
The knight is clearly based on the cavalier class from Unearthed Arcana. So to UA we go...

The UA cavalier actually starts at level zero if your PC is not Upper Class, and must obtain 1500 XP to hit first level. This is...kind of dumb. I'm not even sure how to determine a PC's social class in 1e. Fortunately, you can just ignore this and start with a first level cavalier.

From there, the cavalier gets a d12 hit die (nice!) and advances to second level at 2500 XP. Cool; this is no barbarian with a seemingly high hit die. However, when it comes to armor, the cavalier has to go metal or go naked. In addition, using the 1.5 proficiency rules, the cavalier has to master the knight's standard set of weapons before he can train in others. In addition, cavaliers gain hit bonuses in these weapons as they rise in level.

Cavaliers have other highly-specific weapon-related perks. Each knights must designate a "weapon of choice," with which they gain early access to multiple attacks. They also parry better than other classes, allowing them to also apply all their attack bonuses to AC. They also get a bunch of bonuses when fighting from the saddle.

It doesn't stop there. Cavaliers slowly rise in their physical abilities as they gain levels, and they are immune to fear and highly resistance to mental domination (90%!). Good-aligned cavaliers are apparently able to fight past zero HP, potentially until dead.

Finally, cavaliers have a complex set of social standards and codes of conduct they must follow, according to the dictates of chivalry. As is usual in 1e, these are laid out in what I consider to be tiresome detail. To be honest, the text for this class is pretty dense and fussy. Welcome to AD&D.

The OSE knight (I like the more conventional name) is a fun little class; much the same as his UA ancestor but boiled down to the essence. Second level is reached at 2500 XP, so their progression is on par with magic-users. At first glance, they are pretty similar to fighters in terms of hit dice (d8), THAC0 progression and saving throws.

Interestingly, knights come with a number of restrictions out of the box that fighters don't share. First of all, they can only use metal armor, and they can't use ranged weapons. The former is actually kind of fun; I like the role-playing potential of a character who always has to have "top shelf" gear. The latter is a little absurd; samurai, for instance, were actually more renowned for their archery skills than their katana-handling.

In terms of behavior, their alignment must be the same as their liege (just like real life) and they are bound by the code of chivalry. They have to engage the toughest opponent one-on-one or risk dishonor, and dishonor turns knights into vanilla fighters. I'm not as fond of this restriction because it severely limits a party's tactical options. I don't think a knight should be expected to challenge trolls and demons to duels.

There is an upside to this honor stuff - from third level onward, knights can expect to enjoy the hospitality of the local lord, within reason. That's both realistic and welcome.

What about the good stuff? Well, to start off, knights are good on horseback, getting +1 to hit when mounted. This also counts when riding more fantastical creatures, which knights may train as steeds from fifth level onward. Fifth level knights are also able to coax their mounts to sprint for short periods of time, gaining a movement boost.

Finally, knights are famously fearless. As such, they are immune to magical fear effects, and from third level on up, they provide allies with+2 to save against fear and +2 to NPC morale. Also, the stubborn bastards get a +4 saving throw bonus against any kind of magical compulsion and +2 against illusions.

The verdict
So the knight is a strictly melee warrior who specializes in mounted combat, and is especially resistant to magic that targets his mental state. He's very flavorful, but the flavor is strictly high fantasy and not at all realistic. That doesn't mean it's bad - after all, this belongs to the "classic fantasy" genre (or was it "advanced fantasy"?). They're fun if you want to play your fighter as a door-kicking hero who charges into battle while the rest of the team is still arguing about the plan. That's not my style, but I've seen plenty of players who thoroughly enjoy that approach.

I do very much appreciate how much OSE simplified this class. For instance, a first and second level knight is still considered to be a squire. This subsumes that weird idea from UA about how non-aristocratic cavaliers must pass through two zero level to reach first level. It's also why a number of perks don't kick in until third level. Another great choice was to eliminate the weapon-specific bonuses. Those sorts of things may be thematic, but they rarely add to the fun, in my experience.

Paladin
Paladins showed up in Player's Handbook as a (wildly popular) fighter sub-type, although Unearthed Arcana later reclassified them as a sub-class of cavaliers. But seriously, who cares about that? Anyway, let's go back to the PHB and review the copious abilities of this fan favorite.

Paladins in 1e get a d10 hit die and need 2750 XP to reach second level. That's more than a magic-user, but barely. Why was the barbarian so expensive, again? They fight like fighters and learn clerical magic late in life (9th level and beyond). Saving throws are as a base fighter, but this is modified by class perks (see below). They are able to wield and wear what they want, and oh yeah, they are big goody two-shoes types. But everyone knows that.

Speaking of paladin extras, there are quite a few. They detect evil at 60', which actually seems pretty powerful to me. I'd be spamming that outside every door. All saving throws are at +2 and they are immune to disease. They can lay on hands to heal up to twice their level in HP per day, and cure one disease per week for every five full levels of experience. Finally, they constantly emit a 1" radius protection from evil.

On top of this, they turn undead like a cleric two levels lower, and can summon a holy warhorse at fourth level. But they only get one per decade, so that's probably just one for your whole adventuring career. But it's a great horse.

Paladins don't have the same complex set of social restrictions that cavaliers have to live with, but they must be faithful to their god and Lawful Good at all times or they become stupid boring fighters. They are even restricted on how many weapons and suits of armor they can own at once - that's kind of silly, don't you think? This guy only gets one suit of armor, so either he's wearing plate in the swamp or leather in the dungeon.

The OSE paladin is pretty goddamn similar. They have an experience point curve that's on the steep side, reaching second level at 2750 XP. Same as papa. But as we know, paladins have so much more.

This paladin has the same d8 hit die and THAC0 progression as fighters and other martial classes, and they can use any kind of weapon or armor, but their saving throws are markedly better than fighters, by -2 across the board...just like big brother. Whereas knights are required to be brave and honorable, paladins are required to be pious and good. They can be stripped of their non-fighter benefits for straying from the path, as per usual. They even have to give up 10% of their income to their god, but on the plus side, they can be sneaky fucks when killing nasty chaotic monsters.

Paladins also get a very familiar set of clerical goodies. Just like the 1e paladin, they can high-five Jesus for twice their level in HP per day, and at 5th level, they can cure disease once per week (plus they are immune to disease). They turn undead like a cleric two levels lower, and start learning clerical spells at ninth level. Finally, they can summon a kick-ass steed at fifth level, but again, only one per decade.

The verdict
That's pretty much it. This guy is obviously closely modeled on the original, which is totally fine because the paladin has always been a cool iconic class. The OSE version drops some of the more annoying abilities like protection from and detection of evil. It also drops the silly equipment restrictions and streamlines the enumeration of restrictions. These were all good decisions.

Coming next
Like I said, we still have to cover the ranger and svirfneblin (gesundheit!). Then we'll explore how OSE does race-and-class separately; I have to admit that I'm less excited about this section. Race-as-class can seem a bit restrictive at times; my homemade solution is usually to define at least one alternate racial class for each race. At least, that's what I do in DCC, so players who roll up a dwarf for the funnel have some options afterwards. But I digress!

See you next time!
 
Last edited:
To anyone reading this thread: my apologies for my obsessive need to edit these multiple times after the fact.
 
Elrond Half-Elven and Arwen Evenstar from LotR, Tanis Half-Elven from Dragonlance, Orion from King of Elfland's Daughter ... as Baulderstone says, it's the "oh woes I is trapped between two worlds" groove.



The rock/soil angle is exactly how I play dwarves and gnomes. The gnomes don't understand the dwarven obsession with dead stone--it's live soil and everything that lives in it that interests them.
Eh, Elrond and Arwen have nothing to do with Tanis. Middle-Earth “Half-elves” don’t straddle two worlds, they choose one or the other. Elrond chose elvenkind and immortality, Arwen chose humanity and death. Middle Earth half elves are all about that choice, there’s absolutely none of that “oh woes I is trapped between two worlds” Emo Tanis Groove.
 
It's actually kind of cool because Elves and Humans are the same physical race in Middle Earth, they just differ in how wedded their souls are to the physical world and their body.

Elves have very physically integrated souls and thus have greater control over their body and an understanding of nature. Human souls are more free meaning they eventually grow bored of material existence and can properly die and have their souls leave the physical world.

Half-elves are choosing their theological nature more so than race.
 
It's actually kind of cool because Elves and Humans are the same physical race in Middle Earth, they just differ in how wedded their souls are to the physical world and their body.

Elves have very physically integrated souls and thus have greater control over their body and an understanding of nature. Human souls are more free meaning they eventually grow bored of material existence and can properly die and have their souls leave the physical world.

Half-elves are choosing their theological nature more so than race.
That’s an interesting interpretation. I’m going to chew on that one for a while.
 
What Tolkien intended and what fandom has done with his concepts are two different things. In a Middle-earth post-Peter Jackson, Arwen Evenstar struggles with her choice, and that's something a lot of younger people respond to.
 
That’s an interesting interpretation. I’m going to chew on that one for a while.

There's a passage in Letters where Tolkien makes it clear that they are the same 'race' in the sense of being interfertile, and the hroa/fea relationship and ultimate destiny does seem to be the primary distinction.
 
That’s an interesting interpretation. I’m going to chew on that one for a while.
There's plenty on it in the twelve volume History of Middle-earth, especially "Morgoth's ring" in the part where it discusses Iluvatar's coming incarnation as Jesus (in a passage where an elf realises mankind will need Iluvatar in the form of a man to walk among them to cleanse Melkor's corruption).

I'll post some later. Also some good stuff like the Silmarillon being revealed as a human myth and the truth behind it, e.g. Melkor didn't destroy the Two Lamps rather he removed the divine aspect of the Sun's light and the Two Trees of Valinor were the last things to grow under divine light rather than being sung into existence. The Valar are revealed as more like cosmic space gods.
 
Last edited:
I think my overall point is that people like half-elves and will play them whether or not the racial class is mechanically very interesting.
 
There's plenty on it in the twelve volume History of Middle-earth, especially "Morgoth's ring" in the part where it discusses Iluvatar's coming incarnation as Jesus (in a passage where an elf realises mankind will need Iluvatar in the form of a man to walk among them to cleanse Melkor's corruption).

I'll post some later. Also some good stuff like the Silmarillon being revealed as a human myth and the truth behind it, e.g. Melkor didn't destroy the Two Lamps rather he removed the divine aspect of the Sun's light and the Two Trees of Valinor were the last things to grow under divine light rather than being sung into existence. The Valar are revealed as more like cosmic space gods.

It should be noted that the latter were ideas Tolkien was experimenting with, not anything set down firmly. The bit about the Incarnation comes from the Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth, though, which appears to have reached a fairly solid and authoritative form, although Tolkien felt he might be tiptoeing too close to revealed religion with it.

Morgoth's Ring also includes material where Tolkien wrestles with the "Orcs as inherently evil" question, as well as some distinctions between Morgoth and Sauron that makes them very distinctive in their modes of evil.
 
What Tolkien intended and what fandom has done with his concepts are two different things. In a Middle-earth post-Peter Jackson, Arwen Evenstar struggles with her choice, and that's something a lot of younger people respond to.

Arwen wrestling with the choice and its consequences does come from Tolkien, although it's only hinted at in the core text; you have to go to the Appendices and the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen for it to really come through clearly. Now, Elrond as manipulative jerk and the idea that Aragorn and Arwen having a child would be unexpected … those come from Peter "Often Seeing with the Eyes of Morgoth" Jackson. ;)
 
It should be noted that the latter were ideas Tolkien was experimenting with, not anything set down firmly
Agreed.

Morgoth's Ring also includes material where Tolkien wrestles with the "Orcs as inherently evil" question, as well as some distinctions between Morgoth and Sauron that makes them very distinctive in their modes of evil
A wonderful section I agree, Morgoth's evil is more "child-like" in a sense, i.e. jealous of things that were "not him" in some sense and that he couldn't directly manipulate. Where as Sauron had a more mature evil, a desire to control originally borne from caring about the world. If memory serves.
 
There's a passage in Letters where Tolkien makes it clear that they are the same 'race' in the sense of being interfertile, and the hroa/fea relationship and ultimate destiny does seem to be the primary distinction.
Right, it's just the idea that physically they are really the same and the nature of their soul and its integration with the body that accounts for the quite substantial physical differences that I have to think about.
 
A wonderful section I agree, Morgoth's evil is more "child-like" in a sense, i.e. jealous of things that were "not him" in some sense and that he couldn't directly manipulate. Where as Sauron had a more mature evil, a desire to control originally borne from caring about the world. If memory serves.

Correct. To bring it somewhat back on topic, it forms a key part of my mental distinction between Lawful Evil (or just plain Evil for 4E) and Chaotic Evil alignments and exemplars thereof--devils and demons in D&Dish settings, Takhisis and Chaos in Dragonlance, etc.
 
It's hard to say much of anything about Arwen's inner conflicts as she is barely more than a footnote. Given that after Aragorn dies, Arwen leaves Minas Tirith and returns to abandoned Lothlorien, where she pines away and dies, I don't think it is simple as she just chose humanity and that was that.

There is certainly no question that Tolkien wanted to evoke an air of pathos in Arwen's decision.
 
Part VI: Classes (continued) and Races

Only two more of the new classes to go: ranger and svirfneblin. That's one traditional (fighter sub-)class, and a new racial class, so it's a good finisher.

After that, there's the chapter on the optional rules for race as distinct from class. I'm not going to cover this chapter in as much detail for reasons that I'll explain when we get there. For now, let's finish those classes.

Ranger
Rangers have always been a really useful class once the party steps outdoors. The rangers of AD&D were obviously modeled closely on the Rangers of the North in Lord of the Rings rather than a generic tracker/hunter/scout, but they can fill either niche very well. As usual, we're going to start with the 1e ranger before making our way to OSE.

Rangers in 1e must be good aligned, and at first level, they get 2d8 HP. That's weird. After that, their hit die is d8, but they keep getting full hit dice until they reach eleven (most classes stop at nine). That's odd, too. They save as fighters, though. They progress to second level at 2250 XP.

Rangers surprise on 3-in-6 and are only surprised 1-in-6. Softly softly. They do bonus damage against giants, because I guess they hate giants. I suspect this goes back to Greyhawk. They are famously great at following tracks in the wilderness, of course. Also, the gain access to druid spells at eighth level and magic-user spells at ninth.

In terms of restrictions, the only ones I see is that they have to be good, or they stop being rangers, and they have to carry everything they own. So what happens if they buy an apartment...do they stop being rangers? That's rough! Anyway, that's it for the ancestors. Moving on...

OSE rangers are pretty up-front about their influences. The first sentence describes them as members of a secret society that protects their lands from Chaos. As such, they can only be Lawful and Neutral. We learn that high level rangers learn how to cast spells due to their connection with nature. All very canonical.

Rangers in OSE have a d8 hit die, a martial THAC0 and fighter saving throws, and hit second level at 2250 XP. So far, that's about what I'd expect. In terms of arms and armor, they can't go any heavier than chain, which makes total sense, although I didn't spot that in the PHB. Then, we're on to the extras.

Right off the bat, we learn that rangers are only surprised 1-in-6, so they can be unsurprised while the rest of the party is standing around agog. Also, they can move silently 3-in-6 times, so they're obviously well-suited to scouting. Same as 1e.

The famous tracking abilities of the ranger are in full effect. The rules give a nice table of percentile modifiers to adjust for tracking conditions - simple stuff. Hmm, I wonder why AD&D never provided such a table for things like hiding in shadows or moving silently. Oh well, consistency is the bugbear of good design. Anyway, the ranger has tracking skills and also gets a bonus for situations where they are pursuing other parties in the wilderness; this hooks into the simple chase mechanics for B/X. That's a good attention to detail.

Finally, rangers can start learning druid spells at eighth level. This is pretty late in their adventuring career; only the paladin starts later (at ninth level). But these guys are really fighters, so that's no big deal.

The verdict
OSE rangers and 1e rangers are pretty similar, but as usual, some valuable streamlining has occurred. Gone are the 2d8 HP at first level. Gone are the magic-user spells. The addition of the pursuit modifier is a nice touch that shows Gavin was paying attention. Me like.

Svirfneblin
OK seriously, who came up with this stupid name? I looked all over the place to see if it was taken from mythology, but I came up with nothing. Truly, this must be one of the worst make-believe names that TSR ever introduced. Apparently the fault goes back to D2 Shrine of the Kua Toa, so the blame can be laid squarely on Uncle Gary himself. I can't say that I'm the least bit surprised.

Anyway, they're a bit of an odd bunch because they're gnomes but they live deep underground. So why aren't they dwarves? How can you even tell when everyone can apparently mate with everyone? I'm getting sidetracked here, so let me sum up: I am not sure why these exist.

But they do! Thus Old-School Essentials, in its enduring faithfulness to the originals, is completely obliged to render their interpretation. And that's what we're here to talk about. But first, let's talk about the original svirfneblin for PCs i.e. as introduced in Unearthed Arcana.

The AD&D 1e deep gnome looks a little crazy, to be honest. I'll start with the reasonable stuff. Svirfneblin have a 60% chance of concealing themselves against stone. Not bad. They also get a +2 saving throw versus poison, which is nice...and +3 to all saving throws, which is really nice. And they're immune to illusions. OK, I lied, I started getting crazy right off the bat. Let's keep going with that.

At sixth level, non-illusionist deep gnomes gain the ability to summon an earth elemental once a day. Gee, only once per day? They can also can cast blindness, blur and change self once per day, and always radiate an aura of non-detection. None of this is OP so don't you worry.

Finally, they get have infravision and ultravision (you didn't forget about ultravision, did you?), and suffer under bright lights like all deep folk. Oh yeah, they also get +1 to hit and damage drow and kua-toa, because nothing says role-playing in 1e like racial animosity.

The OSR deep gnome is faithful to the concept of the original without being ridiculous. It gets a d6 hit die and martial combat THAC0s, which is pretty common for demi-humans. I'm not sure I agree with making so many of them equivalent to fighters on THAC0, but it does seem to be traditional. Saving throws are identical to gnomes, and they hit second level at 2400 XP.

The svirfneblin get a lot of the usual perks for short underground demi-humans. There's 90' of infravision (and light sensitivity), the ability to detect peculiarities of construction and defensive bonuses against giant adversaries.

They also have a bunch of unique knacks. Deep gnomes have a +2 to save against illusions, and they're really good at hiding among rock and stone; 4-in-6 if it's gloomy or 2-in-6 otherwise. They also have the unusual ability to listen to the murmurs of the earth, and have a 2-in-6 chance from doing so of learning about interesting secrets of stone (secret doors, hidden gems, etc.). Finally, they can speak Earth Elemental and can use any magic item with an earthy theme, even if it's meant for wizards.

I haven't talked at all about "name-level" perks like strongholds and followers, but it's interesting to note that high-level deep gnomes are joined in their stronghold by earth elementals. That's the concession to their stupid 1e powers.

Comparing gnomes to deep gnomes may be instructive. Deep gnomes get a better hit die and much better THAC0, as well as a bunch of stone-related abilities. Gnomes can't fight worth a damn, but they are respectable illusionists. Both classes have terrific saving throws.

The verdict
Svirfneblin are much improved by this adaptation to the point of being playable. OSE happily stripped deep gnomes of their abilities to summon earth elementals and cast spells daily. Also, they are no longer fully immune to illusions. The ability to listen to stone murmurs is new and I like it - it's not overpowered and it's very thematic. Finally, the XP scale is quite reasonable. As usual, I approve of all decisions.

Race rules
I thought about how detailed I want to cover this chapter. Each race gets its own page, and there are ten of them, so I could easily proceed with races in the same manner than I've covered classes. However, I've decided instead to describe the chapter in general terms, and include some images of the terrific art in this book.

There are a couple of reasons I don't want to profile every race. First of all, it's just not that interesting to me. Race-as-class is something I'm totally happy with playing if we're playing any kind of B/X game. Second of all, most of the differences between OSE races and 1e races are matters of quantity and style. Individually, they are less interesting to analyze.

Even so, if anyone has specific questions or discussion points about these races, or their 1e counterparts, I'd be glad to get into more detail in future posts. For now, I'm going to speak about the racial rules in general terms and talk about the organization of this chapter.

The rules for choosing a race are pretty simple. First you roll your ability scores as normal. This is important because many races have minimum ability scores. Once the race is chosen, its own ability modifiers are applied, and then the player proceeds with standard character creation by choosing a class.

Personally, I'm not a fan of ability requirements or modifiers for different races. After all, somebody has to be the world's clumsiest halfling...why not you? The ability requirements don't do anything for game balance; quite the opposite, they insure you're doubling down on the ability-based bonuses appropriate to the race. But this is the way it was done, so I don't begrudge OSE for its faithfulness. You shouldn't come to this section hoping for a fresh take on D&D races.

Another tradition that these rules apply are level limits for non-human races, according to class. I've never been a fan of this, either, but at least it has some value in balancing the game. My preference would be to apply an experience penalty for running a particularly perky demi-human, but that would be completely novel for D&D, so I wasn't expecting it.

However, these rules do provide optional (double-optional?) mechanics in case you want to remove demi-human level limits. Instead, perks are given to humans in order for the lowly Homo sapiens to keep pace with fantasy folk. That's an entirely legitimate alternative, and I believe it has some precedent in rules (but don't quote me).

After that, we're on to the specifics of each race. Each race gets a page, and these pages are very well-organized. Unlike the rambling text of PHB/UA, different attributes of each race are broken into clearly-labeled sub-sections. As always, OSE is top-notch tableware.

Oh, and as for those optional human abilities: +1 Constitution, +1 Charisma, +1 initiative, +1 to employee morale, and advantage on hit point rolls. That last one is pretty cute, especially with your mandated Constitution bonus.

That's all I really have to say about this chapter. The races themselves are much as you'd expect, given the existing OSE racial classes and decades of D&D tradition. The humans are the only novelty here, ironically.

So check out this art I captured from this chapter, and enjoy!

lf.png

drw.png

svrf.pnghfrc.pnghflf.png

dwf.pnghflg.png
Next installment
Poison gets its own chapter, for some reason, and then we're on to "Advanced Rules." And that will bring us to the OGL, so I'll wrap things up with some final thoughts.
 
Last edited:
Incidentally, I wanted to reply to a bunch of these posts about half-elves and Tolkien, but it's kind of a pain when you've got a post sitting in draft. Séadna Séadna, that's some really interesting stuff that I had never heard before, and I thought I had at least passing familiarity with the vast bulk of Tolkien's legendarium.

I guess the half-elf thing is a thing, but is still doesn't resonate with me. That's fine, though. I think the class is very serviceable for playing that type of PC. Or really any other, because it's general enough to be highly adaptable.
 
Last edited:
Where is the Thief class? I judge the playability of all old-school D+D variants by their treatment of thief skills...
 
Where is the Thief class? I judge the playability of all old-school D+D variants by their treatment of thief skills...
It's in the Classic Fantasy genre rules that replicate B/X, where as this book is a B/X take on AD&D. It's exactly like B/X except he clarifies Find/Remove Trap to be Find/Remove Treasure Trap.
 
So I loves me my hunters and beastmasters, but I'd rather have the OSE petless ranger than the horrific beastmaster ranger of 5E. I also appreciate that the dual-wielding is gone.
 
Where is the Thief class? I judge the playability of all old-school D+D variants by their treatment of thief skills...
I explained at the top but in a bit of a rambly fashion: the core of Old-School Essentials is an utterly faithful rendition of B/X - it's just better organized and prettier. The volume I'm talking about here was a Kickstarter stretch goal to adapt AD&D 1e concepts to the OSE framework. OSE works really well as a replacement for B/X and Rules Cyclopedia, or as a reference system for adventure design. The core is mechanically identical to B/X, and this volume (Old School Essentials - Advanced Fantasy: Genre Rules), along with the druid and illusionist spell volume, represents the only significant deviation from that (so far...there are more genre supplements to come).
 
Yep, the OSE Classic Fantasy Genre Rules book has the seven original B/X classes: cleric, dwarf, elf, fighter, halfling, magic-user, and thief.
 
Regarding the Svirfneblin: I think you're right that Gavin has made them a viable race-as-class option. There's no way I'm using them, though: gnomes are soil and earth and biomass, dwarves are stone and metal and inorganic, and duergar are those dwarves who delved too deeply and went a bit cuckoo for Cocopuffs. The Svirfneblin just mess that symmetry up (although I suppose you could use them in place of the duergar for Deep Dwarves who aren't touched in the head).
 
Regarding the Svirfneblin: I think you're right that Gavin has made them a viable race-as-class option. There's no way I'm using them, though: gnomes are soil and earth and biomass, dwarves are stone and metal and inorganic, and duergar are those dwarves who delved too deeply and went a bit cuckoo for Cocopuffs.

I like this interpretation of gnomes, but if using it, I'd be inclined to go the whole nine yards and replace their favored class/spell list with druid rather than illusionist.
 
I explained at the top but in a bit of a rambly fashion: the core of Old-School Essentials is an utterly faithful rendition of B/X - it's just better organized and prettier. The volume I'm talking about here was a Kickstarter stretch goal to adapt AD&D 1e concepts to the OSE framework. OSE works really well as a replacement for B/X and Rules Cyclopedia, or as a reference system for adventure design. The core is mechanically identical to B/X, and this volume (Old School Essentials - Advanced Fantasy: Genre Rules), along with the druid and illusionist spell volume, represents the only significant deviation from that (so far...there are more genre supplements to come).

I get it. I don't understand why they wouldn't revise the thief skills - they changed so many other details about class abilities, and 'traditional' thief skills pre-2E are utter garbage.
 
I get it. I don't understand why they wouldn't revise the thief skills - they changed so many other details about class abilities, and 'traditional' thief skills pre-2E are utter garbage.
They didn’t change any of the traditional class abilities. The advanced fantasy book is a translation of AD&D classes to B/X mechanics.
 
I like this interpretation of gnomes, but if using it, I'd be inclined to go the whole nine yards and replace their favored class/spell list with druid rather than illusionist.

That could work. I plan on keeping the illusionist connection because I like the idea of little trickster fairies like Puck (aka gnomes) as well as potent tall fairies like Titania and Oberon (aka elves).
 
I get it. I don't understand why they wouldn't revise the thief skills - they changed so many other details about class abilities, and 'traditional' thief skills pre-2E are utter garbage.
If you want a revision of the Thief class from B/X by Gavin Norman, he already did a book called The B/X Rogue. Admittedly, it's a lot fiddlier than his later work, but I like it. Unfortunately, as its for Labyrinth Lord, it is built on a 20-level scale though.
 
Unfortunately, as its for Labyrinth Lord, it is built on a 20-level scale though.
Why did LL use the 20 level scale? I've always imagined levels 9-12 as the pinnacle of human potential and it's one of the many reasons B/X is my favorite D&D system. Iconic characters like Conan, John Carter of Mars, Merlin, Roland, Thoth-Amon, and Elric all seem to fit in this level range (at least in my head canon).
 
Has anyone in the OSR taken a serious poke at the 36 level scale?
 
Poison gets its own chapter, for some reason...
It looks like Gavin is just using the standard format for genre books that I mentioned in an earlier post.
  • Classes
  • Equipment
  • Vehicles, Mounts, Vessels
  • Hirelings
  • Strongholds
  • Additional rules for the genre
The relevant sections for this book are classes, equipment and additional rules for the genre. As the only equipment he found relevant to include is poison, it gets its own short chapter.
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top