Not usually a fan of retroclones that are straight up reprints with minor tweaks but this recent re-release of Fantastic Heroes & Witchery got me interested. (https://nerdomancerofdork.wordpress.com/2014/04/17/flavors-of-the-osr-part-4-fantastic-heroes-witchery/)
I've heard good things about Crouzet's adventures for Dark Albion and I like to check out retroclones for cool ideas, unfortunately I'm usually disapointed and end up with a cut and paste job.
This seems different enough to have some ideas to steal. Checking out the free version so far I see that this is a very cleaned up 1e with lots of classes. The approach to magic isn't radical but I do like the approach to religion, priests and white, gray and black magic.
I really like the Weird Tales classes and races, I wish he had just stuck with this actually, a supplement in this setting would grab my attention.
I dig the original art, there's something appealingly funky in Crouzet's art, I wish it was all by him.
BTW is there anything more boring than the equipment lists in an OSR rules set?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1658[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1659[/ATTACH]
I only bought this recently and I'm blown away with the sheer amount of info (in a good way). I like the way it's modular too, so you can add in the extra rule options if you want to, or just leave it as is. A huge amount of different characters to choose from. Very good value for money. I think there are 666 spells in there too so you won't be short. :)
I''ve bought quite a few different bits over the last while, so I'm still struggling to give everything a good look over. But from what I've seen so far I'd highly recommend it.
One of my favorite OSR books by far. If I was going to run Dark Albion or Legend or Warhammer in a class/level system, this would be it I think.
Agreed. My prejudice is to just play D&D when I play D&D, but I own and use this. It is really good.
It's my favorite retroclone, and my goto version of D&D.
Quote from: The Exploited.;994413I only bought this recently and I'm blown away with the sheer amount of info (in a good way). I like the way it's modular too, so you can add in the extra rule options if you want to, or just leave it as is. A huge amount of different characters to choose from. Very good value for money. I think there are 666 spells in there too so you won't be short. :)
I''ve bought quite a few different bits over the last while, so I'm still struggling to give everything a good look over. But from what I've seen so far I'd highly recommend it.
OTOH, I was highly disappointed by the number of spells and considered them to be 50 too much;).
I bought it too just for the sheer presentation/art/feel of it. But It's a good game as well as great presentation.
Quote from: AsenRG;994648OTOH, I was highly disappointed by the number of spells and considered them to be 50 too much;).
Ha ha! Would 25 be okay? ;)
Quote from: The Exploited.;994721Ha ha! Would 25 be okay? ;)
No, 666-25=641, which has no meaning I know of. Subtract 50 from it, however, and see what happens:)!
Mind you, I don't usually care about the magic system, so that's not a big deal for me;). The different styles of fighting more than make up for this, in my book:D!
However, I've been spoiled for OSR fighting subsystems. A game should better have the Mighty Deeds like DCC, Minor/Major Exploits like Low Fantasy, or at least the Fighter/Wayfarer Stunts of Crimson Blades or the Combinations of Spellcraft and Swordplay, or I'm going to have to houserule:D!
You have to like RPGs that have lots of classes and special abilities and such, but if you do, FH&W is fantastic. I like how it orders the classes in bunches of 'normal', 'weird' and then 'really weird' somewhere at the back.
It'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.
Quote from: CRKrueger;994416One of my favorite OSR books by far. If I was going to run Dark Albion or Legend or Warhammer in a class/level system, this would be it I think.
Quote from: Madprofessor;994604It's my favorite retroclone, and my goto version of D&D.
I'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'?
Quote from: RPGPundit;995368You have to like RPGs that have lots of classes and special abilities and such, but if you do, FH&W is fantastic. I like how it orders the classes in bunches of 'normal', 'weird' and then 'really weird' somewhere at the back.
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.
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'?
There's B/X in there too. Since when is AD&D not OSR? If you eliminated any game with any 3.x elements from the OSR, you'd get rid of anything with ascending AC, that's like half the games.
Quote from: CRKrueger;995620There's B/X in there too. Since when is AD&D not OSR? If you eliminated any game with any 3.x elements from the OSR, you'd get rid of anything with ascending AC, that's like half the games.
To the bold, since it came out, I was under the impression. I'm a former AD&D 2e DM and I've been under the impression that it's 'new school' or whatever.
As for the rest of the statement, I'm not wanting to remove anything from whatever classification or label people want, I'm just confused as to why it's OK to use newer stuff, and still get the OSR branding.
It also, I suppose, depends on what the R stands for.
If it's Revival,then changing stuff might get the side eye. Because Revival implies something being brought back with little to no changes.
If it's Renaissance, then changing stuff is OK, because it's about changing 'for the better'. (Note the quotations, very important.)
Quote from: AsenRG;994797No, 666-25=641, which has no meaning I know of. Subtract 50 from it, however, and see what happens:)!
666 - 50 = 616?
I don't get it.
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;).
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.
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;).
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.
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.