|
|
Post by foxroe on May 15, 2017 18:25:22 GMT -6
I've been (re)reading the AS&SH rules* (in particular, Vol.III) and I have to say, they're growing on me more and more. They're very elegant. They present the familiar codex of D&D in a more modern manner, while maintaining the varietal charm of the original rules (i.e. different dice for different rules, roll high/ roll low, look-up tables, etc.). Which brings up another point I'd like to make: The game is often compared to AD&D, but the similarity is only superficial IMO - as a rule set it is much more akin to OD&D + supplements, with just a salt-and-peppering of Holmes and AD&D. *(I blame blackadder23 and his Hyperborean Encounters thread.  ) |
|
|
|
Post by grodog on May 15, 2017 18:52:23 GMT -6
Which brings up another point I'd like to make: The game is often compared to AD&D, but the similarity is only superficial IMO - as a rule set it is much more akin to OD&D + supplements, with just a salt-and-peppering of Holmes and AD&D. I'd be curious to hear more of your thoughts along those lines, foxroe: I tend to align ASSH as moreso with Holmes and AD&D vs. OD&D, myself, so I'm curious what distinction you're making (I also see little distinction between OD&D + Supplements vs. AD&D too, FWIW). Allan. |
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on May 15, 2017 23:58:43 GMT -6
Well, my first impression of the game was much the same as yours; that is, AD&D + Holmes: sub-classes, extra spells borrowed from AD&D, slightly more granular combat rules (with the use of dexterity in tied initiative rolls), equipment list that uses denominations other than gold, the % tests for attributes, Holmes-like spell descriptions, etc. Even reviewers say "it's basically AD&D". But I feel those codifications are merely inspired by AD&D, and not just picked whole-cloth. To me, the AS&SH rules feel more like Jeff's house rules for his OD&D game. Also, BTB AD&D has it's rules spread out (and not thinly) across three hardbacks; Jeff's rules fit into two "pulp magazine" sized (well, slightly smaller), ring-bound soft-covers - and really, the core of the rules fit into just the short Vol. III section. When rereading the books, I noted that the Acknowledgements in the Players' Handbook state That got me into the "original rules" frame of reference as I was reevaluating the AS&SH rules. I agree with you though, AD&D is definitely OD&D+Supplements (squared). EDIT: Of course, I suppose that it could be looked at through either lens. I just feel that the rules are too simplified to be strictly an AD&D "retro-clone". Just my opinion of course, which is worth about as much as the paper I just wrote it on.  |
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on May 16, 2017 3:52:40 GMT -6
So I started to write a follow-up post. I was going through the three rule sets and comparing and contrasting the various treatments of the basics, developing proof to support my theory, but I had to stop. It was rather boring, and, well... preachy. So I tossed out a couple hours of "work".  In the end I think, Mr. Talanian wrote a great set of old-school rules that hit the sweet spot between OD&D and AD&D. So, it really doesn't matter which edition it steers closer to. After all, I think we would both agree on the similarities that exist between all three games.  |
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on May 16, 2017 4:51:24 GMT -6
Now, about those rules...
Some things I really like about them:
- No extraordinary strength scores or bloated bonuses
- Core four classes with optional sub-classes (but they're too cool not to use... I love how the Ranger is treated)
- Most character class abilities use d12 rolls in place of the usual d6 or d%... more love for the twelve-sided Platonic solid!
- A soft level cap of 12 (there's that number again!)
- Weapon mastery (like specialization from AD&D), but no "proficiencies"
- For non-Fighter classes, the weapon choices are initially restricted, but then any class can select a non-standard weapon at higher levels (so, Mages with swords)
- Spell descriptions aren't too long or too short and follow the Holmes convention in formatting (level, range, duration)
- Non-combat actions not covered by a class ability are covered by the Str/Dex/Con "extraordinary feat" d% tests, or just a simple d6 roll
- 10 second combat rounds
- Single simplified attack matrix that uses "fighting ability" rather than separate matrices for each class (kind of like OD&D)
- Descending AC!
- Single saving throw target based on level; class gives bonuses for different save types (like S&W)
- Initiative is d6, but ties are resolved by comparing Dexterity scores (all monsters have Dex stats); there's also an optional rule for "reach"
- Tons of optional combat actions and tactics with simple rules
- Flaming oil rules that distinguish between lighting a puddle of lamp oil and the use of "Greek fire"
- Simple unarmed combat rules
- Scaled natural healing rules rather than a fixed rate for everyone (gain back a HD worth of HP per rest period)
- Poison variants (similar to AD&D)
- Simple aerial, water-borne, and siege combat rules (like OD&D)
|
|
|
|
Post by blackadder23 on May 16, 2017 8:09:17 GMT -6
Everybody always blames me!  |
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on May 16, 2017 20:08:46 GMT -6
I love how the Ranger is treated. Does the AS&SH ranger get to use spells at higher levels? |
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on May 17, 2017 2:34:16 GMT -6
I love how the Ranger is treated. Does the AS&SH ranger get to use spells at higher levels? Yes (Druid and Magician spells), but the Ranger is limited to knowing only a spell per slot, if you follow me. They don't have access to all of the Druid spells all of the time, and they don't have spell books (they learn Magician spells through meditation and ritual). For example, an 8th level Ranger can cast one 1st level Druid spell and one 1st level Magician spell per day. Once the player declares what spells those are, that's it. They can't switch to a different spell on the following day - it will always be whatever spell it was that was chosen for that slot. They can't learn another 1st level spell until they get another "slot". Spells end up being more like "class abilities" rather than traditional spells. Am I making sense? I'd quote the rule, but my computer is being weird about copying and pasting from the PDF. Oh, and they're "sworn enemy" bonus, instead of applying to humanoids and giant-kin, applies to Elder Things and such.  |
|
|
|
Post by blackadder23 on May 17, 2017 6:38:13 GMT -6
I love how the Ranger is treated. Does the AS&SH ranger get to use spells at higher levels? The scout is a non-magical ranger (more or less) for those who want to play such a thing. |
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on May 17, 2017 7:45:53 GMT -6
I like that the "basic" version of the game is built into the rules. The four core classes are presented, then there is mention that the subclasses are up to your referee. Also, rules for most tactical options in combat (dodging, parrying, disarming, shield walls, etc.) are pushed to an "advanced" section so they can be safely ignored if that's your thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on May 17, 2017 9:01:28 GMT -6
Does the AS&SH ranger get to use spells at higher levels? Yes (Druid and Magician spells), but the Ranger is limited to knowing only a spell per slot, if you follow me. They don't have access to all of the Druid spells all of the time, and they don't have spell books (they learn Magician spells through meditation and ritual). For example, an 8th level Ranger can cast one 1st level Druid spell and one 1st level Magician spell per day. Once the player declares what spells those are, that's it. They can't switch to a different spell on the following day - it will always be whatever spell it was that was chosen for that slot. They can't learn another 1st level spell until they get another "slot". Spells end up being more like "class abilities" rather than traditional spells. Am I making sense? I'd quote the rule, but my computer is being weird about copying and pasting from the PDF. Oh, and they're "sworn enemy" bonus, instead of applying to humanoids and giant-kin, applies to Elder Things and such. Yes, that makes sense. At what level do rangers start getting spells? |
|
|
|
Post by The Wanderer on May 17, 2017 9:04:27 GMT -6
It will be sweet when the PDF from the 2nd edition kickstarter is released so I can finally read this and see what all the excitement is about |
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on May 17, 2017 17:33:57 GMT -6
geoffrey - Rangers get their first spell, a 1st level Druid spell, at 7th level. Oh, and even though by 12th level they can use 3rd level spells, they never get more than one slot at each spell level. So a 12th level Ranger has only six spells: Druid - 1/1/1 and Magician 1/1/1. The Wanderer - You can get the 1st edition in PDF for $10 (which is quite a deal considering what you get).
|
|
|
|
Post by The Wanderer on May 17, 2017 20:12:02 GMT -6
Yeah but I pledged $15 for the 2nd edition PDF with the kickstarter. Don't really want to pay more money for the same material
|
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Sept 8, 2017 4:23:57 GMT -6
(deleted)
Sorry, my original post was misinformational, so I deleted it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ghul on Oct 2, 2017 12:07:10 GMT -6
Great posts in this thread, foxroe! I like the observations you've made and the conclusions you've drawn. I cut my teeth on Holmes D&D, and later, with my paper route money, I saved up for the DMG. For a long time my games were run with those two resources alone, oddly enough, so who knows how much of that informed my creative process whilst designing and developing AS&SH? But at the same time, I was reading the Ace paperback Conan books, Moorcock's Elric, and absolutely adoring every issue of Savage Sword of Conan. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2018 20:33:14 GMT -6
Just got my copy of the awesome 2nd edition book a few days ago. I'm really enjoying it so far, especially the fun sub-classes. I've always enjoyed specialty wizard-types and the berserker class is great. Our group alternates between Castles & Crusades and first edition, so this will be easy to incorporate into our game. I already have some Lovecraftian elements in my homebrew world, so this game hits the sweet spot. I'm just working Hyperborea in as the north pole world while retaining the rest of the our world intact. Incidentally, I also like the mass combat rules, which remind of the War Machine from the Companion set/Rules Cyclopedia. We don't use a lot of mass combat, but I sprinkle it in and these rules are perfect for our needs. In short, I'm impressed with this game and can't wait to roll up some characters.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ghul on May 17, 2018 18:21:05 GMT -6
Just got my copy of the awesome 2nd edition book a few days ago. I'm really enjoying it so far, especially the fun sub-classes. I've always enjoyed specialty wizard-types and the berserker class is great. Our group alternates between Castles & Crusades and first edition, so this will be easy to incorporate into our game. I already have some Lovecraftian elements in my homebrew world, so this game hits the sweet spot. I'm just working Hyperborea in as the north pole world while retaining the rest of the our world intact. Incidentally, I also like the mass combat rules, which remind of the War Machine from the Companion set/Rules Cyclopedia. We don't use a lot of mass combat, but I sprinkle it in and these rules are perfect for our needs. In short, I'm impressed with this game and can't wait to roll up some characters. I'm delighted to hear you are enjoying what you've read so far, persimmon! |
|
)
