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

[Edgewise]

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.

Ah, it all makes sense.

 

[CRKrueger]

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.

Arwen’s pathos is entirely personal based on her relationship with Aragorn. There is no “caught between worlds, possessing some of each but belonging to neither” of Tanis and the stereotypical half elf. She was as beloved a queen in Gondor as she was an elf in Rivendell and Lorien. There’s not a hint of the outcast about her.

 

[Baulderstone]

Of interest to this thread, Gavin just wrote a blog entry about his layout for OSE classes.

 

[Vargold]

I appreciate his holding fast to the single-spread layout-informs-design principle.

 

[Baulderstone]

In other OSE news, Gavin is currently playing around with stats for an Advanced monster book to break up the tedium of his final read-through of the Rules Tome. He just shared this in chat on MeWe.

 

[Vargold]

The American in me recoils at "mould."

 

[Séadna]

Related to Elves and their souls in Tolkien as mentioned above. Fëar is essentially the "soul" and hröar the body.

The existence of Elves: that is of a race of beings closely akin to Men, so closely indeed that they must be regarded as physically (or biologically) simply branches of the same race....But by nature the fëar of Men were in much less strong control of their hröar than was the case with the Elves

the high king of the Valar, Manwë, describes the “prime nature” of the Elves as a harmonious integration of body and soul

The coherence of body and soul experienced by Elves, for example, gives them great control over their bodies, enabling health, strength, and immortality, a control which Men do not have

the fëar of Men, though close akin indeed to the fëar of the Quendi, are yet not the same. For strange as we deem it, we see clearly that the fëar of Men are not, as are ours, confined to Arda, nor is Arda their home

 

[Dumarest]

We have nothing to fëar but fëar itself.

 

[Séadna]

We have nothing to fëar but fëar itself.

Fëar is the mind killer.

 

[Dumarest]

Fëar is the mind killer.

Dont fëar the reaper.

 

[Edgewise]

Part VII: Poison and Advanced Rules​

For this installment, I'll be delving into the final chapters of this lovely volume. The chapter on poison is short and sweet, while the advanced rules cover a topics that expand upon the abilities of PCs in a variety of ways.

Poison
This chapter is really about what happens when PCs acquire and use poison. When it comes to spells, traps or monsters, I guess the assumption is that the poison takes effect instantly on a failed save. The Core Rules don't really go into any detail on this matter, which is in keeping with the source material. I've often considered this to be an unfortunate ambiguity, especially when you consider spells like slow poison. That would seem a lot more effective if we had some mechanics for gradual poison effects.

Anyway, I flipped back to the Dungeon Master's Guide to see how AD&D handled these rules. I was surprised to discover that OSE didn't fundamentally change anything, here. The big difference is that information is organized so much better than it was in the DMG. We have the same two basic groups of poisons: bloodstream (aka insinuative) and ingested (aka ingestive). There are four different types of the former and five of the latter. Each is described with a cost, saving throw modifier, chance of detection, and the effects for successful and unsuccessful saving throws.

Comparing the DMG with OSE, even the numbers are the same. The biggest difference here is that the DMG leaves off columns for saving throw modifiers and chance of detection, leaving those to asterisked footnotes. Typical! Also, OSE breaks the different mechanics into clearly identified sections instead of one big chunk of text. Both systems have rules for evaporation and multiple hits with an envenomed weapon, but they are much easier to find in the OSE volume.

Another funny thing I noticed here while reading through the DMG is how ridiculously narrow the margins were. I think some of the characters are actually right on the edge of the page. The font is also nearly microscopic. With OSE, as I've stated, you've got highly readable fonts stranded in seas of whitespace.

One small change I noticed is that the DMG states that when most PCs use poison, saving throws are increased by two, and when an assassin uses poison, it depends whether or not he has specialized in poison (only available at 9th level and beyond). If the assassin hasn't trained in poisons, saves are +1, but if he has, there are no modifiers.

OSE by contrast applies a -2 penalty for those saving against an assassin's use of poison. The modifiers on the table assume that a character using the poison is not an assassin. It's simpler, and it makes it seem like more of a perk for assassins than a penalty for non-assassins.

Class abilities
This section is pretty brief. It has two sub-sections; the first specifies certain limitations to turning undead and the second merely mentions that magic-users and illusionists are allowed to fight with staves.

The restrictions for turning undead - once per encounter but successful attempts to turn one type of undead in a mixed group allow follow-up attempts to turn another type. The Dungeon Master's Guide specifies similar limitations, but with greater verbosity. The freedom of magic-users to use staves is merely reflecting that this was the case in AD&D.

Combat
A few new options are given here. First, dual wielding is permissible with -2 to hit with the main hand and -4 to hit with the off-hand. You have to have Strength or Dexterity as a prime requisite of your class to pull off this move i.e. fighter types. The DMG also gives this option, but the penalties are scaled down for high Dexterity, and the endeavor is not limited to martial characters.

The next sub-section gives rules for charging. The rules say that the charging character must run at least 20' to attack and he or she gets +2 to hit and +1 to AC. It also says that weapons which can brace against a monster charging can brace against a PC charging. In the Classic Fantasy Genre Rules I found out that some weapons can brace against a charge for double damage.

The DMG has pretty much the same rules in many more words. Are we starting to see a pattern?

The next sub-section provides mechanics for parrying; sacrificing one's attack allows a character to use his or her Strength modifier as a bonus to AC. It's a weird rule, but it can be found in the Player's Handbook, so that's why it's here. Apparently, weak people don't get any advantage for parrying.

It goes without saying that OSE did it better, since there's no reason that this rule is in the PHB instead of the DMG. In fact, a number of combat rules are scattered haphazardly between the two tomes, and occasionally there appear to be small contradictions. OSE avoids this by being well-written.

The final sub-section deals with splash damage from things like throwing flaming oil or holy water. The rule is simple; the attack targets a spot on the ground with AC 9, and if the attack hits, then everything in 5' is splashed. A splash from a damaging fluid causes 1-2 damage. If the attack misses, then it scatters 5' in a random direction (roll 1d12 to determine the o'clock).

The DMG rules for this are actually quite a bit more complex, with different kinds of damage for direct hits and splashes with different fluids, different splash radii, etc. It also calls for rolling 1d8 to determine the direction of scatter. I'm not sure why Gavin chose to completely overhaul these rules, but it's a good idea because the original rules are too cumbersome.

Magic
There are two topics of this section: surviving resurrection and mechanics for learning new spells. The limitations for raising the dead are a limit on the number of times a character can so rise (i.e. equal to Constitution), loss of one Constitution per resurrection, a chance of dying immediately after being raised due to shock (the chance is inversely proportion to Constitution, of course).

If I recall, these rules are mostly set forth in the Player's Handbook. I find it kind of perverse and fun that this version of the game keeps these rules for players as something to discover after they actually try to raise the dead. It's important to have limitations on such things, since OSE provides raise dead as a fifth-level spell.

The mechanics for learning magic actually override the Classic Fantasy: Core Rules. In that book, it states that PC magic-users are able to automatically learn new spells equivalent to their casting slots as they rise in level. In these rules, the number of starting spells that a magic-user knows is based on his or her Intelligence, and new spells can be copied from recovered scrolls and spellbooks.

The Dungeon Master's Guide has rules that are similar, but different. It provides rules for starting magic-users to learn precisely four spells - three of which are random plus read magic. The exact chance of learning a new spell is different, and there is also a maximum and minimum knowable spells per level, based on Intelligence. As usual, OSE streamlines the awkward mechanics and verbiage of AD&D.

Drawing things out
I lied again; I'm not going to finish everything with this post. I'm going to leave multi-classing, secondary skills and weapon proficiencies for the next installment. Comparing the multi-class rules between OSE and AD&D is going to take a bit more time because AD&D multi-class rules are pretty complicated - keep in mind that 1e differentiates between multi-class characters and dual-classed characters. Fortunately, OSE makes this a lot easier even if it doesn't simplify my comparison process.

So come back one more time for those topics plus my wrap-up. See you then!

 

[Voros]

Regarding 2e Assasins. In The Complete Thief's Handbook they are a Kit for thieves. Although they do note that any class can and often will act as assasins as well.

They also note most Assasins are of Evil alignment although they may be Neutral, although never Good.

As with most Kits in 2e it is really a question of flavour rather than mechanics, mainly through the Nonweapon Proficiences like Trailing, Disguise, etc. They also can use any weapon, with none of the usual 2e weapons restrictions for thieves. They note Assasins usually select one favoured weapon, like a garotte or poisoned blowdarts that may become their 'calling card.'

Thief skillwise they favour the skills to move silently, hide in shadows, detect noise and climb walls. The pick pocket skill is less for picking pockets and more for slipping poisons in drinks, etc. Because of their greater focus weapons and poisons they start with a lower-than-usual 40 discretionary points to allocate to their thief skills and only receive 20 points to distribute among their skills per level after that.

Their only Special Benefit is the ability to identify poisons, 5% per level with bonuses for Intelligence or if they have the Herbalism NWP. There are some details on how the Assasins chances to identify can be adjusted depending on its odor, symptoms or even taste.

 

[Edgewise]

Part VIII: Advanced Rules (continued) and Summary​

OK, I said I would tackle multi-classing, and multi-classing I shall tackle. I'll also be covering skills and proficiencies, and then giving my overall for this entire volume.

Multiple classes
The OSE rules for multi-class characters are, flat out, superior to those of 1e. I'm leading with that because the AD&D rules in the original Player's Handbook were absurd (to me, at least). So let's go there first.

When I say these mechanics were absurd, I don't mean that they don't make any sense. I understand that these rules were an attempt to give the people what they were clamoring for (fighter/magic-user/thieves, of course) without breaking game balance. But as usual, these rules have arbitrary racial limitations (genre-based?) and arbitrary restrictions. They also ended up being too complicated (again, in my opinion).

The PHB describes two kinds of characters with multiple classes: multiclass characters and dual-classed characters. Multiclass characters had to be non-human races, with only certain combinations available to specific races. I scoured the PHB and DMG for an explanation for how to allocate XP in such a situation and I didn't find anything.

Further browsing the web, it seems that the standard assumption is that XP are divided evenly between classes. This is a reasonable default assumption, but of course it means that multiclass characters will have lots of HP for their XP level. That's simply due to the exponential XP curve. Level limits for non-humans was probably meant to be a counterbalance for this, but that means that either single class demi-humans are overly penalized or the advantages of multiclass demi-humans are merely mitigated.

Anyway, the other form of multi-classing is the dual-class PC, and this is (for reasons I can't quite fathom) a purely human option. A human PC can choose to abandon one class to take up another. At this point, he or she starts at first level in the new class, only carrying over HP. Then, the character could be said to be "probationary" in the new class until he or she reaches a level higher than was reached in the prior profession.

In this quasi-probationary state, the PC cannot use any abilities from the old profession without losing all experience earned during the current adventure. Once the character is out of probation, new HP are earned with the hit die of the new class (implying that none were earned previous to this), and old abilities can be safely accessed without jeopardizing one's experience.

It goes without saying that these rules are not entirely balanced (even though that was clearly a goal), needlessly complex and just all-around janky. OSE streamlines this beautifully. XP is divided evenly between all classes, and your PC gets the best for THAC0, saving throws and proficiencies. HP are earned each time you level a class, but the number is divided by the number of classes your character has. Fractions are retained for later accumulation into whole HP values.

That's it! It's balanced, it's simple, it's beautiful. Any questions?

Secondary skills
The Dungeon Master's Guide has these rules, but it's not entirely clear when the DM is supposed to apply them. Are they optional? The PHB makes no mention of asking the DM what your character's pre-adventuring profession was. It comes across as very optional - the DM is instructed to roll or pick a result. Hilariously, a percentile roll of 68-85 on the table yields the (all-caps) result of "NO SKILL OF MEASUREABLE (sic) WORTH." Why did I roll on this optional table, anyway?

OSE makes it clear that these are optional, and how they can be used. There are no results of NO MEASURABLE WORTH, but none of them are super-useful. A PC vintner might add a little color by bringing along a bottle of his personal wine, and a former blacksmith might be able to reforge farm tools into polearms. But the text makes it clear that PCs aren't going to be forging their own Excaliburs with these skills. It's a lot like DCC, which was obviously inspired by the original 1e mechanic.

Weapon proficiencies
AD&D introduced the concept of weapon proficiencies in the Player's Handbook, later supplementing this with mechanics in Unearthed Arcana that allow fighters to specialize in one weapon. Each PC starts out familiar with a certain number of specific weapons, and new weapons can be learned periodically upon gaining levels - the number of starting weapons and rate of learning new ones are both class-dependent. In addition, using an unfamiliar weapon incurs an attack penalty which is also based on class.

Weapon specialization is a 1.5e mechanic that was only available to fighter-types. Those characters could designate one weapon as their specialty at the cost of an additional proficiency slot (or two). Fighting with such a weapon incurs bonuses to attack and damage, and the character gets a high number of extra attacks; the exactly number depends on the character's level and the weapon type. Some weapons, like throwing darts, could be spammed in mass quantities with the corresponding specialization..

To be honest, the specialization rules put the fighter on a higher tier, and you'd be a fool not to take one. I'm not a huge fan of this. Weapon specialization just means that the character gets a power-up by being monotonous. Also, I think this marks the start of the power creep that reaches its full flowering with later editions.

The OSE approach for proficiencies is extremely similar to what we saw in the PHB. Just as with THAC0, Old School Essentials categorizes classes according to whether they are martial, semi-martial or non-martial. This category governs a character's initial proficiency count, non-proficiency penalty and rate at which new proficiencies are earned.

The benefits of specialization are greatly toned-down. For the cost of an extra proficiency slot, a martial character can specialize in one weapon. Using that weapon earns the PC +1 to attack and damage. That's it. This is much more preferable to me. I've noticed that a lot of players like having some kind of mechanic to acknowledge their PCs' quirks. This rule means you can have your archer or duelist without it being an overwhelming feature of play.

OGL
...and that's it! We've reached the end of Old-School Essentials - Advanced Fantasy: Genre Rules. Just for the record, Gavin and co. covered all this material in fifty-three clearly-written, well-organized and highly-legible pages. So what do I think?

In summary: this volume is an extremely valuable contribution to our hobby. It's a shining example of how materials should be presented i.e. maximum clarity. Total usability.

Let's talk about the creative decisions that were made here. Unlike the core ("Classic Fantasy") OSE project, the Advanced Fantasy materials have required careful curation and elegant adaptation. Curation was exercised in choosing precisely what material to adapt from AD&D 1e to OSE. There were many things left by the wayside; let's list notable omissions:

• Magic items
• Monsters
• Unarmed combat rules
• Underdark survival
• Psionics
• Complicated weapon stats
• Aerial and waterborne combat mechanics
• Domain management rules
• High-level class abilities
• Sub-races
• 2D alignment
• Aging
• Disease
• Campaign management
• Governance
• The significance of different gemstones

To be honest, there was a lot of material to sift through. I think that Gavin made good choices, although I would have been interested to see his take on unarmed combat or underdark survival. Despite teasing us with the introduction, there was precious little "genre" for this volume.

Mechanics for race/class and multiple class characters are great to have because a fair number of players prefer this approach. I like the light touch used with weapon specialization. Poisons and special combat rules are fine - the decision was made that these didn't require any changes, and I'm OK with that. Well, I think the rules for parrying are pretty silly, but I can live with it.

If you read through the earlier parts of this series, then you already know that I approve of the new classes. They're all really well-done. I think that DoctorDuckButter's contention that drow are not entirely worth the XP may be correct, but there's nothing truly objectionable. I'm a big fan of the duergar's psionic abilities, and I'm also fond of the gnome. The barbarian was liberated from a crippling XP curve in AD&D to something highly playable. Half-orcs are bushwacking bastards, acrobats are silly but usable. There's a lot here that I really like and nothing that I hate.

As I've said, I think this system (OSE generally - not Advanced Fantasy in particular) will end up occuping a significant place in the OSR. The Basic Fantasy volumes are utterly faithful to B/X but with greatly improved usability. The entire line is generating excitement and attention. As a result, I think it should be used as a reference for a lot of upcoming OSR adventures. We'll see if this is borne out.

Your turn
So that wraps up my Let's Read. What about the rest of you? You guys who have access to this book have already weighed in a bit, but I'd love to hear more. And if anyone else has questions, I'll be happy to answer to the best of my ability.

 

[T. Foster]

Multiple classes
The OSE rules for multi-class characters are, flat out, superior to those of 1e. I'm leading with that because the AD&D rules in the original Player's Handbook were absurd (to me, at least). So let's go there first.

When I say these mechanics were absurd, I don't mean that they don't make any sense. I understand that these rules were an attempt to give the people what they were clamoring for (fighter/magic-user/thieves, of course) without breaking game balance. But as usual, these rules have arbitrary racial limitations (genre-based?) and arbitrary restrictions. They also ended up being too complicated (again, in my opinion).

The PHB describes two kinds of characters with multiple classes: multiclass characters and dual-classed characters. Multiclass characters had to be non-human races, with only certain combinations available to specific races. I scoured the PHB and DMG for an explanation for how to allocate XP in such a situation and I didn't find anything.

Further browsing the web, it seems that the standard assumption is that XP are divided evenly between classes. This is a reasonable default assumption, but of course it means that multiclass characters will have lots of HP for their XP level. That's simply due to the exponential XP curve. Level limits for non-humans was probably meant to be a counterbalance for this, but that means that either single class demi-humans are overly penalized or the advantages of multiclass demi-humans are merely mitigated.

...

It goes without saying that these rules are not entirely balanced (even though that was clearly a goal), needlessly complex and just all-around janky. OSE streamlines this beautifully. XP is divided evenly between all classes, and your PC gets the best for THAC0, saving throws and proficiencies. HP are earned each time you level a class, but the number is divided by the number of classes your character has. Fractions are retained for later accumulation into whole HP values.

That's it! It's balanced, it's simple, it's beautiful. Any questions?

Wow. For someone with the cover of the AD&D Players Handbook as your forum avatar you don't seem to have a very good grasp on its contents. What you're touting as the balanced, simple, and beautiful new system here is pretty much exactly the same as how demi-human multi-classing always worked in 1E:

It is also possible for a dwarven character to opt to work simultaneously in the fighter and thief classes; in the latter event the dwarf will be limited to the armor permitted a thief when performing any functions of that class. Experience will always be divided between the two classes also, even though the dwarf may no longer advance upwards in fighting ability level. (Complete information regarding this subject is given hereunder in the section dealing with CHARACTER CLASSES.)

An elven character can also be multi-classed, i.e. a fighter/magic-user, a fighter/thief, a magic-user/thief, or a fighter/magic-user/thief. If the character is multi-classed, the following restrictions and strictures apply: Although able to operate freely with the benefits of armor, weapons, and magical items available to the classes the character is operating in, any thieving is restricted to the armor and weaponry usable by the thief class. All earned experience is always divided equally among the classes of the character, even though the character is no longer able to gain levels in one or more of the classes. (More detailed information is given in the CHARACTER CLASSES section hereafter.)

(A near-identical passage appears in each of the other non-human race descriptions as well)

Multi-classed characters determine their hit points as follows:
1. Roll the hit die (or dice) appropriate to each class the character is professing.
2. Total the sum of all dice so rolled, and adjust for constitution (q.v.).
3. Divide the total by the character's classes (two or three), dropping fractions under 1/2, rounding fractions of 1/2 or greater upwards to the next whole number.
4. The number derived (quotient) is the number of hit points the multi-classed character gains with the rise in that experience level.

Note that when multi-classed characters are no longer able to progress in any given class, they no longer gain the hit dice for that class. (See
CHARACTER HIT POINTS).

Multi-class characters, characters with two classes, and bards check the matrix for each class possessed, and use the most favorable result for the type of attack being defended against.

The only differences in the OSE are clarifying that the "use the best value" rule for saving throws also applies to THAC0 and proficiencies (a good addition), and keeping fractional HP values (which I'm not so sure of), and (apparently) applying the same rules for all races instead of different systems for humans and non-humans (which can be argued either way).

I get that you're excited about this product and want to make a point of how much of an improvement it is over AD&D (and in terms of organization, layout, and language clarity I'm sure it is) but at least in this case (and arguably a few others upthread as well) you've taken the "boy 1E sure was an unplayable mess" shtick a step too far (at least IMO).

 

[Edgewise]

Wow. For someone with the cover of the AD&D Players Handbook as your forum avatar you don't seem to have a very good grasp on its contents.

You're mostly right about what you're saying here, but that was an unkind way to start off.

First of all, you've omitted mention the dual-classing system, which was happily jettisoned. That system was inelegant, overly detailed and no fun at all. This is a significant improvement.

Second, while you're dead right that I missed the fact that AD&D already advocates for dividing HP by the number of classes the character has, I'm going to blame the crappy organization of the PHB. An interesting thing about all the citations you provide - none of them are from pp 32-33. You know, where the book has sections entitled "The Multi-Classed Character" and "The Character With Two Classes." The rules for multi-classing are smeared all over the place.

This project was not intended to provide a close reading of the PHB, but of this volume of OSE. I did not prepare for this by wading through the turgid 1e manuals from cover-to-cover. I did that 35 years ago and I have no desire to do it again. You'll noticed that I basically skipped the sections on race where they did not pertain to one of the new racial character classes. You may also notice that I wrote these articles over a period of days, not weeks. So if you're hoping for deep scholarship of the 1e manuals, I think you'll have to start your own Let's Read.

Also, I don't claim to be an authority of anything. This is called "Let's Read," not "I'll Read." The purpose of this thread is to discuss, inquire and provide clarification. So thanks for doing the latter, but I can do without the "gotcha" style.

 

[Dahak]

Edgewise: how do other class abilities interact for other multiple class characters in OSE? Can you cast spells in armour, for example? (sorry if I missed that when reading through.)

 

[Edgewise]

Edgewise: how do other class abilities interact for other multiple class characters in OSE? Can you cast spells in armour, for example? (sorry if I missed that when reading through.)

I was pretty vague about this point; mostly yes but a little no. The rules allow multi-classed magic-users to cast spells while wearing any armor they are allowed by any of their classes, but thief skills are restricted based on the class you get them from. This means only leather armor when being stealthy - unless you're a multi-class ranger (the only other non-racial class with any stealth ability). Rangers can apparently sneak around with chain and a shield.

It's a little weird, but AD&D is even a little weirder in this respect as your stealth skills may restrict what kind of weapon you wield, as well. So no moving silently with halberds, I suppose?

 

[CRKrueger]

You're mostly right about what you're saying here, but that was an unkind way to start off.

First of all, you've omitted mention the dual-classing system, which was happily jettisoned. That system was inelegant, overly detailed and no fun at all. This is a significant improvement.

Second, while you're dead right that I missed the fact that AD&D already advocates for dividing HP by the number of classes the character has, I'm going to blame the crappy organization of the PHB. An interesting thing about all the citations you provide - none of them are from pp 32-33. You know, where the book has sections entitled "The Multi-Classed Character" and "The Character With Two Classes." The rules for multi-classing are smeared all over the place.

This project was not intended to provide a close reading of the PHB, but of this volume of OSE. I did not prepare for this by wading through the turgid 1e manuals from cover-to-cover. I did that 35 years ago and I have no desire to do it again. You'll noticed that I basically skipped the sections on race where they did not pertain to one of the new racial character classes. You may also notice that I wrote these articles over a period of days, not weeks. So if you're hoping for deep scholarship of the 1e manuals, I think you'll have to start your own Let's Read.

Also, I don't claim to be an authority of anything. This is called "Let's Read," not "I'll Read." The purpose of this thread is to discuss, inquire and provide clarification. So thanks for doing the latter, but I can do without the "gotcha" style.

Eh, you deserved the smackdown. You're laying on the AD&D1 hate pretty thick. You could have just said, "This is better than stupid poopyhead AD&D in every possible way, shape and form" and then just told us what OSE was like. Then we wouldn't have to read you shitstomping the game in EVERY.SINGLE.SECTION.

Someone who played AD&D has their own opinions, someone who never did is hardly going to get a useful rundown from you.

It almost seems like this whole Let's Read thing was just a way to get in an Epic Rant about AD&D under the radar.

Let's put it this way, assume I'm talking about a Narrative RPG this way. People'd be screaming the rooftop off.

 

[Edgewise]

Then we wouldn't have to read you shitstomping the game in EVERY.SINGLE.SECTION.

You didn't have to read any of it at all. Did you read it because you enjoyed it?

 

[Brock Savage]

Eh, you deserved the smackdown. You're laying on the AD&D1 hate pretty thick

I dunno man. My favorite setting is an AD&D retroclone and I have a lot of love for the wacky rules; I don't think Edgewise has said anything shitty or untrue about the game. No one can deny that the fiddly AD&D rules were inelegantly kludged together from disparate parts like Frankenstein's Monster; I thought that was part of the charm!

 

[Baulderstone]

...Narrative RPG...

Kudos on managing to work your obsession with narrative RPGs into a thread comparing AD&D and a B/X retroclone. I was worried that this thread might wind down without it coming up.

 

[Jetstream]

Eh, you deserved the smackdown.

Nah, not really. That was pretty much just the internet's wild obsession with being as dickish as they possibly can be while disagreeing with someone.

 

[Edgewise]

It almost seems like this whole Let's Read thing was just a way to get in an Epic Rant about AD&D under the radar.

I just noticed this and I had to comment.

Why would I have to go under any radar if I wanted to rant about AD&D? I stated my reason for this thread up-front - you don't have to look for secret motives. I've never hidden my opinions about AD&D so this is a weird suggestion. Does the emoticon mean you're joking? The more I think about this statement of yours, the stranger it seems.

Anyway, if you want to talk/argue about anything specific in my posts, or better yet, the actual subject of my posts (a really cool little volume), then that could be interesting! But if you have a general problem with my opinions or tone, then I don't have much to say about it. You're obviously entitled to do so and there's no point rebutting generalities.

 

[CRKrueger]

Kudos on managing to work your obsession with narrative RPGs into a thread comparing AD&D and a B/X retroclone. I was worried that this thread might wind down without it coming up.

See what I mean? Can't even use it in an analogy.

 

[Edgewise]

See what I mean? Can't even use it in an analogy.

Ah well, I'm done with you - I ran out of fire and acid.

 

[CRKrueger]

Ah well, I'm done with you - I ran out of fire and acid.

Interesting way to diagnose Baulder proving my point...

About the rant, yes, that was a joke. I was pointing out that every sentence is pretty much “This game does X, and have I told you how much AD&D sucks?” Which is fine, just don’t squawk when someone calls you on it. Unleash the hounds and do battle.

Anyway, it does sound like a very cool version of D&D. I’ve been thinking of doing a class/level game again. We had an unexpected death of one of our players, so it might be time for a new campaign. Of the D&Ds to pick, this one is on the list.

 

[robertsconley]

Gavin's strength is his ability to write tersely, and clearly, as well as being able to organize his material in a way that is useful during prep or play. Outside of that his design choices are just as arbitrary as Gygax's, and every other D&D/retro clone author. He does have a good eye for what works well together and avoids things that are the equivalent of Gygax's writing on unarmed combat or how initiative works in AD&D.

Every version of classic D&D has it distractors and proponent. The key to make your take work is present a consistent vision, explain why, and do it in a way that is clear and doesn't take a lot of time to read or use. All of which Gavin has done. But if you don't like the elements of classic D&D he has chosen then it not likely going to change your mind.

As for the issue with multi-classing, I happen to think 3.0 is the edition that got the broad idea right. Allowing classes to be stacked on top of each each time you level. A form of AD&D's dual classing. The issue with its application to classic D&D that in general saves and other elements are presented as absolute numbers not as bonuses to a die roll.

Sure you could make something mathematically equivalent but it will lose an important part of the classic feel making it more like 3.X. For an example look at Blood & Treasure of a clone that pushes things more toward 3.X.

To date, I have not used any multi-classing rules in my own take on Swords & Wizardry. I have experimented with shifting XP columns when a players who was a Montebank, a magic using rogue class, wanted to add a class feature of a Thothian Mage, Shield of Magic. But in general I have remained neutral on it. One aspect of my rules that takes wind out of the multi-classing sail is the flat to-hit curve that my rules shares with Swords & Wizardry and OD&D, and the fact that any character can attempt any ability i.e. skill.

In short there is a lot of ways of slicing the "what a character can do" loaf in classic D&D and still feel and play like classic D&D. Just as there several ways of expressing the number one needs to hit a target (Ascending AC, THACO, charts, etc).

Gavin's version happens to be one that very clearly written and usefully organized as a rulebook.

 

[Edgewise]

But if you don't like the elements of classic D&D he has chosen then it not likely going to change your mind.

Well, if you mean the classic fantasy stuff, then that's absolutely true. But for this advanced fantasy material, some changes have been made, and I don't think there were any that I noticed and didn't like.

As for the issue with multi-classing, I happen to think 3.0 is the edition that got the broad idea right. Allowing classes to be stacked on top of each each time you level. A form of AD&D's dual classing.

I had skipped 3.x (wasn't into D&D at the time), so I missed that. I can't think of anything wrong with it off the top of my head.

The issue with its application to classic D&D that in general saves and other elements are presented as absolute numbers not as bonuses to a die roll.

That's true. It isn't conceptually difficult but the math to make it work would look hacky at first glance.

To date, I have not used any multi-classing rules in my own take on Swords & Wizardry.

Personally I'm pretty neutral. I feel like multi-classing runs up against the whole point of classes, and I'd rather (as GM) design a class that has varied abilities than encourage multiple classes. But I also know that players love to realize whatever concept they have in their heads, so I am willing to bend on this.

Gavin's version happens to be one that very clearly written and usefully organized as a rulebook.

Yeah, that's absolutely the main virtue of the project. I could have reviewed the other volumes but it would just be me saying that over and over.

 

[robertsconley]

Well, if you mean the classic fantasy stuff, then that's absolutely true. But for this advanced fantasy material, some changes have been made, and I don't think there were any that I noticed and didn't like.

Sure but at the risk of sounding jaded, it a variation of the same theme. Important to feel however, that nebulous quality that drive many to madness especially in internet discussions.

I had skipped 3.x (wasn't into D&D at the time), so I missed that. I can't think of anything wrong with it off the top of my head.

The primary consequence is that you have to design the leveling of each class so they can stack on top of each other. Hence things like what you need to hit or what you need to save work more smoothly if expressed as bonuses that add together. However saying take the best number for that level can work but produces a change in the power curve.

One of the reason I like starting with Swords & Wizardry, Core as a base is that it takes far less of my time to juggle the numbers. The main reason I am concerned with the numbers to minimize editing any of the lists of stuff particularly monsters.

That's true. It isn't conceptually difficult but the math to make it work would look hacky at first glance.

Well if you went with stacking level, and wanted to retain absolute target numbers than the least hacky solution is that the character gets the best number they have in a class.

So using AD&D 1st, because I have a DMG PDF handy, a 4th level Fighter/ 2nd level Magic uses

The 3 to 4 column of the fighter chart as it is superior to the 1-5 chart of the Magic User

As for hit points it would be 4d10+2d4+ CON bonus x 6 (but +3, or +4 only pertains to fighter levels otherwise it is +2)

Saves are
Poison (P,P, & DM) 13 from fighter
Polymorph (P & P) 13 from Magic User
Rod (R, S, & W) 11 from Magic User
Breath Weapon 15 from Magic User
Spells 12 from Magic User

The big question is to figure out the leveling. There are several choices each which their own consequences. I personally prefer a single xp chart. Probably using a variant of the fighter character where second level is at 2,000xp and double from there.

 1        0
 2    2,000
 3    4,000
 4,   8,000
 5,  16,000
 6,  32,000
 7,  64,000
 8, 125,000
 9, 250,000
10, 500,000
11, 750,000
+1 +250,000

Personally I'm pretty neutral. I feel like multi-classing runs up against the whole point of classes, and I'd rather (as GM) design a class that has varied abilities than encourage multiple classes. But I also know that players love to realize whatever concept they have in their heads, so I am willing to bend on this.

Speaking as a OD&D referee by the way of Swords & Wizardry, in that edition classes are not as strongly present as they are in the later editions. Especially since I use variations of 1d6 for hit point not different dice. I.e. 1d6+2 to fighter, 1d6 for clerics, and 1d6-1 for magic users. Which works about to be an average of 5.5 hp, 3.5 hp, and 2.5 hp for each class.

In OD&D it is more about what you do than what you are. Plus magic items play a much bigger role at the higher levels and for the most part are available to all character types. Magic items also have virtue of more easily adjustable to suit the setting by controlling availability and type.

But yet I still felt to need to tack on my ability system to represent character that are better at things other than fighting, spellcasting, or taking down Sir Fang errr fighting undead.

 

[Baulderstone]

I'm not crazy about multi-classing in D&D. If you want to play something that isn't properly represented by the classes in the game, it is better just to make a new class.

I don't know about weapon proficiency bonuses either. The cool thing about the fighter is that they can use any weapon competently. Once you make fighters pick a tiny handful of weapons they get a bonus with, it is essentially the same as telling the player that they get a penalty with all other weapons. I want things I add to the game to create options, not make players feel more constrained.

I've always thought having both Cleric and Paladin as core classes was a little strange, as they are both holy warriors. They are certainly different templates, and I like both classes existing. It just seems odd for both of them to be on the main menu.

 

[Edgewise]

I don't know about weapon proficiency bonuses either. The cool thing about the fighter is that they can use any weapon competently. Once you make fighters pick a tiny handful of weapons they get a bonus with, it is essentially the same as telling the player that they get a penalty with all other weapons.

I generally agree. The whole thing reminded me of a conversation I had with Xavier; he wanted a warrior in DCC who specialized in rapier. I said just carry a rapier and use it all the time...ta-da! But I must be getting soft as I get older...I like this OSE approach because it’s low key. It lets players give their fighters a tiny bit of uniqueness. The UA approach was surprisingly OP...I hadn’t realize how powerful it was.

I've always thought having both Cleric and Paladin as core classes was a little strange, as they are both holy warriors.

Clerics are odd. If the DM lets your cleric use a sword then he can do a damn good paladin impression. But if you want to play a cleric like a shaman, then the druid or magic-user seems more appropriate to me. But I’ve never been a big fan of clerics, period. The paladin actually makes more sense to me.

 

[Baulderstone]

I generally agree. The whole thing reminded me of a conversation I had with Xavier; he wanted a warrior in DCC who specialized in rapier. I said just carry a rapier and use it all the time...ta-da! But I must be getting soft as I get older...I like this OSE approach because it’s low key. It lets players give their fighters a tiny bit of uniqueness. The UA approach was surprisingly OP...I hadn’t realize how powerful it was.

Clerics are odd. If the DM lets your cleric use a sword then he can do a damn good paladin impression. But if you want to play a cleric like a shaman, then the druid or magic-user seems more appropriate to me. But I’ve never been a big fan of clerics, period. The paladin actually makes more sense to me.

Well, I started with B/X, so cleric is the default to me for that role. Paladins also feel more specifically Christian than clerics too, so they feel weird to me in a default D&D setting.

They just feel more like something you'd see in a specific setting book than the core line-up.

 

[Edgewise]

Paladins also feel more specifically Christian than clerics too, so they feel weird to me in a default D&D setting.

Well, they both feel very Christian to me. That's why I prefer straight magic-user for pagan-types of priests (perhaps with some spells from the clerical list). But I'd consider putting them both in a separate genre book.

 

[robertsconley]

I'm not crazy about multi-classing in D&D. If you want to play something that isn't properly represented by the classes in the game, it is better just to make a new class.

For me it helps that I have a Montebank class to represent a roguish wizard.

I don't know about weapon proficiency bonuses either. The cool thing about the fighter is that they can use any weapon competently. Once you make fighters pick a tiny handful of weapons they get a bonus with, it is essentially the same as telling the player that they get a penalty with all other weapons. I want things I add to the game to create options, not make players feel more constrained.

The best addition I made to the Fighter was allowing them to add their normal to-hit bonus to their initiative die. The fighter players really like that.

I've always thought having both Cleric and Paladin as core classes was a little strange, as they are both holy warriors. They are certainly different templates, and I like both classes existing. It just seems odd for both of them to be on the main menu.

Clerics quickly segued into being priests due to their ability to heal instead being of focused on killing Sir Fang types due to ability to fight and turn undead which the original impetus for the class. That my theory on the matter.

I think it make sense because PCs like Sir Fang and the undead are situational for an adventure or campaign while being a healing priest has more universal application. But the original conception is a hop and a skip from a Paladin and from what I understand incorporate some of the myths of Charlemagne's Paladins.

 

[robertsconley]

Clerics are odd. If the DM lets your cleric use a sword then he can do a damn good paladin impression. But if you want to play a cleric like a shaman, then the druid or magic-user seems more appropriate to me. But I’ve never been a big fan of clerics, period. The paladin actually makes more sense to me.

My solution was to create a different package of abilities for each religion.

Clerics have in common

• 1d6 hp per level
• the same to-hit progression
• a bonus spell at 3rd level
• the same save
• being able to cast divine spells

They differ on

• allowable weapons and armor
• what spell they get at 3rd level
• their special divine ability i.e. turn undead equivalent.

 

[Edgewise]

My solution was to create a different package of abilities for each religion.

I like this. I recently ran into a take on the cleric recently which spoke to me - they get a whole bunch of divine abilities but no actual spell casting. It makes them feel distinct from mages...I wish I could remember the game. I also like the idea of giving priests a pool that they can spend one-for-one to boost rolls with prayer - kind of like Luck in DCC. I had an ability like that in my own heartbreaker.

 

[Simlasa]

I've always thought having both Cleric and Paladin as core classes was a little strange, as they are both holy warriors. They are certainly different templates, and I like both classes existing. It just seems odd for both of them to be on the main menu.

That came up for me last night in our weekly 5e game.
I'm playing the squire to a paladin who has been sent out to find a cleric of the same god... to make a determination or 'right or smite?'.
Our group also has a druid...
There was really no differentiation between them, in play, except for who had what spells. No mention of any church hierarchy that would set the Paladin over the Cleric or visa versa.
I guess I want religion to play a MUCH bigger and more diversified role in games where it's present, or be left out altogether.

 

[Voros]

Never been a fan of multi-classing in any edition of D&D. As Baulderstone says I think one is just better off with creating a new class or 'subclass.' It also works against the simplicity I consider B/X's strength. But I understand the idea of presenting options for those who want them.

 

[Armchair Gamer]

FYI: The Old-School Essentials Advanced PDFs are now up at DriveThruRPG.

 

[CRKrueger]

That’s one of the things I liked about the ACKS Player’s Companion. You could make a Dunedain Ranger, Ithilien Ranger, Hobbit Bounder, Lothlórien Guard, Mirkwood Woodsman, etc. and the designer of the game gave you the formulas he used to make all the official classes, so you could make your own with ease.