Fantastic Heroes & Witchery by Dominique Crouzet

AsenRG · September 26, 2017, 06:18:41 AM

Quote from: Aglondir;995756666 - 50 = 616?

I don't get it.

The earliest known source gives it as the number of the Beast, and not 666:). Google Papyrus 115 for that.
Thus, there are 50 spells too many;).

Dumarest · September 26, 2017, 09:12:20 PM

Quote from: AsenRG;995914The earliest known source gives it as the number of the Beast, and not 666:). Google Papyrus 115 for that.
Thus, there are 50 spells too many;).

Ha, I thought it was a reference to that godawful Marvel Universe #616 ripoff of DC's old Earth-1, Earth-2, Earth-S, Earth-X silliness.

AsenRG · September 27, 2017, 06:25:16 AM

Quote from: Dumarest;996116Ha, I thought it was a reference to that godawful Marvel Universe #616 ripoff of DC's old Earth-1, Earth-2, Earth-S, Earth-X silliness.

I'm not familiar with this, and can't tell whether it was an intentionall shout-out to Papyrus 115 or not;).

RPGPundit · September 29, 2017, 05:42:26 PM

Quote from: JeremyR;995609It's almost perfect, except for the single saving throw nonsense which completely ruins it for me.

Maybe it's irrational, but I just don't think all classes should "save" against every possible danger exactly the same and that it's a pretty big design flaw.

I don't remember how FH&W handles the single-save. I suppose Dominique could come here himself and answer you, if he notices the thread and isn't too busy working on getting Lion & Dragon published.

But I use single-saves in my OSR games. The way I use it is that the single save is the "baseline" of what you save. These saves can then be modified by different things. For example, a Dwarf character might get a +4 to saves versus magic. So if the baseline is 15, he rolls to save vs. magic on an 11 or more.

If the single-save is done right, it allows for more malleability in terms of situations, rather than less.

RPGPundit · September 29, 2017, 05:48:33 PM

Quote from: Christopher Brady;995614I'm honestly and sincerely confused. It claims to use elements from AD&D (I'm assuming both editions, but I could be wrong) and 3.x on the product page. How is that 'OSR'?

But isn't that against how it used to be played? Before AD&D, there were very few powers beyond a handful and spells, wasn't there? Honest question.

I'm trying to see how this is part of anything that isn't just a mashup (which I will state right here that there's NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT, in fact I'm intrigued enough to look at the free PDF. Once I find a link to it on the page) of the author's favourite systems from D&D, far and recent past.

I'm going to assume you are posting in good faith here, which may be a pretty big assumption.

The OSR involves starting from the baseline structure of the old D&D rules, and then innovating within certain landmarks and limits of what is old-school play.

So it is absolutely fine to create new classes, add new mechanics, or integrate elements from later editions even, as long as none of those alter the fundamental structure from the old-school landmarks.

Fantastic Heroes & Witchery by Dominique Crouzet

AsenRG

Dumarest

AsenRG

RPGPundit

RPGPundit