• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

Inconsistant/Arbitrary rules...

Yep, it was arbitrary, but the rules state that DM could decide to treat a creature's natural armor as an armor type for purposes of the table. I know I never bother - but if you want to treat that Ancient Gold Dragon as wearing Plate (or Scale or whatever), the rules support your decision.

I didn't bother either. All that work for little payout.

You can see there the impetus for the original Rolemaster, which actually defines all those armour types as part of the creatures' stats!

So that's where that was! :)

I just had Arm's Law/Claw Law, tried to use it with 1E AD&D and still couldn't figure out what armor type should be assigned to creatures. And it mattered alot more on those charts.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Not true. If you do not meet the prerequisites of a prestige class you can't take levels in that class, you don't lose abilities from levels already gained.

Well I will be damned! I could have sworn it was the other way. Did that change since 3.0? So that means that Joe the Rogue could be converted to evil, join an assassin's cult, kill someone for no other reason than to join the assassins, gain a level in the assassin prestige class, then someone cures him of his evil (say from the helm of opposite alignment), Joe becomes good again, leaves the cult, but still can advance in the assassin class?

Anyhow, got another one.

1st ed AD&D. In a Dragon Mag, Gary Gygax released an article to modify the then newly released Unearthed Arcana, added a few errata, and notably added a few more multi-class options. One such was the Druid/Ranger. Probably to match his character Curly Greenleaf in the Gord the Rogue novels, but I am guessing here.

Rangers must be of Good alignment.

Druids must be of (true) Neutral alignment (ie. neither good nor evil).

So either the Druid/Ranger is different in alignment from every other Ranger, or is different in alignment from every other Druid.

On the other hand, it let half-elves be paladins, an expansion from the core.

A "party" inconsitancy (again courtesy of 1st ed). Low-level barbarians cannot be in the same character party as magic-users.

If we are just talking about "wackiness", 1st ed Monk cannot use flaming oil. AFAIK, no other character class in the game, in any edition of D&D, has this prohibition.

And with UA we begin to see the devaluing of the half-elf, a proud tradition that continued through many editions of the game. In core, half-elves had low level limits, but were the only class that could be cleric/magic-users, cleric/rangers, cleric/fighter/magic-users, well you get the idea. Other races that could be clerics were either a) the human, who could not multi-class, b) the half-orc, who couldn't be a ranger or a magic-user and had a lower max cleric level to boot, or c) races that only could be NPC clerics. UA blew off the "NPC only" limit, but left half-elves with their lower cleric level limits compared to dwarves, elves, etc. So now the half-elf lost a bit of it's niche protection. Probably they should have raised the cleric level limit of half-elves to at least be as good at being a cleric as one of their two parent races.

Speaking of half-breeds, in 1st ed., half-orcs are shorter than humans and shorter than orcs.

But I feel like I am beating on 1st ed AD&D, so here is a fun aspect to turning undead: Evil Clerics can turn paladins. No save. Payback is a bitch, as I found out to my cost as my brave paladin was forced to flee a combat. :)

In 3rd ed. this extends to some races vs. some cleric domains (scalyfolk vs. lizardy types, construct vs. warforged, etc.)
 

The 1E game system was evolving even as the books were released. See, for instance, how Monster Manual AC, spell casting, etc., correspond to particulars of the earlier game rather than to the new factors in the PHB. In addition, the DMG in particular could have done with better editing.

It appears to me that Mr. Gygax was rather cavalier in treating things that did not matter much to him. The MM psionics ratings are a mishmash of numbers pulled from Eldritch Wizardry and haphazardly misplaced or improperly added. The X.P. values in DMG Appendix E look to have been "eyeballed" based on what "felt right" rather than calculated on the basis presented in the body of the text.

The famously confusing surprise and initiative rules are probably a consequence of all the above factors combined. I suspect that to Gary's thinking, the "real" rule was that the DM applies judgment to the situation at hand -- and whatever dice rolls may seem meet!

How reassuring to read in the description of the gate spell that "your Dungeon Master will have a sure method of dealing with the situation" ... until one remembers, "Oh. I'm the DM!"
 

Kudos to everyone, this thread is a blast to read! My favourite so far:
2E: Every problem with 1e is still there? Kaaaaaahhhhhhhnnn!

...
AoO's (or OA's now i guess). Why? Here's an example- A is busy fighting B when C runs by A triggering an AoO. A gets a free attack on C. So why doesn't B get a free attack on A who just shifted his attention to another target (and may have had to turn completely around to do so)?
Damnation, you're right. I'll houserule that in straight away!
 

My biggest complaint is 1e's Random Prostitute Table. Why was I much less likely to find a slovenly trull instead of a brazen strumpet? And we jump right from Wanton Wench to Expensive Doxy? Totally inconsistent!

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • random_harlot_table.jpg
    random_harlot_table.jpg
    24.2 KB · Views: 943

Going on my "devolution" theme (the half-elf getting progressively nerfed):

In 1st ed, magic resistance existed, but the "damage doing magic-user" could, at high levels, one shot a monster through pure damage. Thus magic resistance was often the only thing saving that monster, sometimes.

In 3rd ed, we still have spell resistance, but also added in damage caps for spells by level, evasion/mettle abilities/feats for no damage, and, most notably, greatly increased monster hit points. Spells were not similarly increased in damage to keep up (i.e., monsters gained extra hp for high constitution per hit dice, but wizards did not get an int modifier bonus to each dice of their fireballs).

Thus the "pocket nuke" mage got devalued.

Combine the two devolutions and you have the half-elf evoker! Good luck with that in 3rd ed. :)
 

My biggest complaint is 1e's Random Prostitute Table. Why was I much less likely to find a slovenly trull instead of a brazen strumpet? And we jump right from Wanton Wench to Expensive Doxy? Totally inconsistent!

attachment.php

Thanks PC that table will be a lot of help for my current Thursday campaign...

The one that gets me was that Humans dual class and demis multi class, given level maximums and life spans (plus humanities drive and versatility) this just seems odd.
 


...almost forgot the big one in 3E: concealment. It's arbitrary and inconsistent. Why attack/defence modifiers for cover, but not concealment?

Less arbitrary, but just as annoying: arcane spell failure, or any d% rolls for that matter. If you only have +/-5%-increments anyway, you might as well roll the d20.
 


Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top