D&D 1E AD&D two weapon fighting

[Alzrius]

Ugh, that one. That's right up there with elves can't be resurrected, except with a rod ... except less understandable.

Elves could be resurrected, they just couldn't be raised.

1E was full of contradictions. The DM really had to make it up as you go.

My favorite was the Bard - The bard could be a half-elf or a human. To be a bard you first had to dual class in fighter and Thief, then you could take your third class in Bard ..... but half-elves were not allowed to dual class ..... so they could be Bards, but they could not earn the class prerequisites to be a Bard!

Mine was hit points. There's a big section in the DMG saying how hit point loss represent a whole mess of things besides physical damage, and then the basic spell to recover hit points is named cure light wounds and is described as restoring "1 to 8 hit points of wound or other injury damage to the creature's body to be healed."

 

[billd91]

Elves could be resurrected, they just couldn't be raised.

You might think so, but resurrection includes text referring back to raise dead to determine what sorts of creatures can be brought back from the dead. So with the casting of the resurrection spell - still no elves.
Yet you could still bring them back with a rod of resurrection.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Elves could be resurrected, they just couldn't be raised.

(This also applies to half-orcs, but unlike elves, there are some good half-orcs)

Raise Dead Spell:
When the cleric casts a raise dead spell, he or she can restore life to a dwarf, gnome, half-elf, halfling, or human.
(PHB 50)

Resurrection:
The cleric employing this spell is able to restore life and complete strength to the person he/she bestows the resurrection upon. The person can have been dead up to 10 years cumulative per level of the cleric casting the spell, i.e. a 19th level cleric can resurrect the bones of a person dead up to 190 years. See raise dead for limitations on what persons can be raised.
(PHB 53)

Why the distinction?
AD&D assumes that the anima, that force which gives life and distinct existence to thinking beings, is one of two sorts: soul or spirit. Humans, dwarves, halflings, gnomes, and half-elves (those beings which can have a raise dead or resurrection spell cost upon them) all have souls; all other beings that worship deities have spirits. This latter group includes (but is not limited to) elves, orcs, half-orcs, and the other creatures specifically mentioned in the NON HUMANS' DEITIES section of this work.
(Deities & Demigods 10)

Famously, of course, despite the weird spirit/soul distinction (which didn't seem to apply to, um, Trap The Soul) and stated you couldn't use resurrection ... you could, in fact, use a rod of resurrection, because reasons.


Now stop me if you've heard this before ... a later edition, 2e, changed the rules and made it so that Raise Dead wouldn't work, but Resurrection would (this was popularized in video games like BG). So a lot of people remember the 2e rule and ... bring it back to 1e. Even though the rules are different.

I feel like ... nevermind.

 

[Helldritch]

I'm not sure how you get most of these numbers. With 5/2 attacks dual wielding, you get 6 attacks half the time and 4 the rest. With 3 attacks dual wielding, you get 6 per round. Unless I am missing something...?

I was refering to a hasted character dual weilding. As the attack rate is supposed to be applied to each weapon/hand... That is really fast.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I was refering to a hasted character dual weilding. As the attack rate is supposed to be applied to each weapon/hand... That is really fast.

A hasted character dual-wielding under the classic 1e rules would have:
A. 4 attacks/ round (standard).
B. 6 attacks/ round (fighter (incl. subclass) with 3/2).
C. 8 attacks/round (fighter (incl. subclass) with 2/1).

Which is a lot! But the original rules for TWF were written prior to weapon specialization, and with the assumption that the dagger/ hand-axe (and loss of shield) would be a meaningful restriction. And haste was supposed to be a big tradeoff with the aging. Finally, high-level fighters were a very big deal in AD&D; 13th level (2/1) was four levels (and 1 MEEELEEEON experience points) above "name" level.

It's just a very different way of thinking- it's the same reason that the RAW in 1e permits (for example) someone wielding a dagger to get up to two "free" attacks in addition to their regular attack(s) due to weapon speed.

As soon as weapon specialization came it, though, it was all pretty much borked.

 

[Nikosandros]

BARDS ARE THE BANE OF ALL THE IS GOOD

Jacke and Alphonse would agree with you.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Edit:" At some point, a simple -2/-4 would not that detrimental to a high (16+) martial character. Especially if gauntlets of ogres' strength were found and/or strength spells were used. Although characteristic augmentation was rare at low.levels, it was much more common at high level as wishes would become quests rewards. At these levels, you are dealings with very high patrons and even gods.

I remember one of my characters got a ring of three wishes once. lol. I think we just didn't assume that anything much above name level really existed in the PC world. There were a few super high level 'retired' PCs that one of my friends and his other group ended up with, but we treated them as sort of just rumors or legends, you never actually met them in any of our games, we just didn't assume things like 20th level PCs really existed.

So, for us anyway, wishing for higher stats wasn't much of a thing. You could of course try it, in a rare case, but IIRC the rule was basically you got 1 point per wish, and then after 16 you got 0.1 points per wish, or something like that. Nobody ever found 10 wishes AFAIK, or if they did they weren't saying. lol. Just slightly different versions of 'high level'. I'm pretty my 14th level wizard was about the pinnacle of PCs in our game. Mike, the GM, definitely had a lot of bad guys gunning for him.

 

[Helldritch]

A hasted character dual-wielding under the classic 1e rules would have:
A. 4 attacks/ round (standard).
B. 6 attacks/ round (fighter subclass with 3/2).
C. 8 attacks/round (fighter subclass with 2/1).

Which is a lot! But the original rules for TWF were written prior to weapon specialization, and with the assumption that the dagger/ hand-axe (and loss of shield) would be a meaningful restriction. And haste was supposed to be a big tradeoff with the aging. Finally, high-level fighters were a very big deal in AD&D; 13th level (2/1) was four levels (and 1 MEEELEEEON experience points) above "name" level.

It's just a very different way of thinking- it's the same reason that the RAW in 1e permits (for example) someone wielding a dagger to get up to two "free" attacks in addition to their regular attack(s) due to weapon speed.

As soon as weapon specialization came it, though, it was all pretty much borked.

I agree. That is why when UA came out, it made us "rethink" about the dual weilding rules. Weapon specialization was desirable at it was helping the martial classes a lot at high level but with both hands having the attack rating independently applied, it was wayyyyyy too much. So we restrict it to mean basic attack attack sequence. So a normal human has one attack? Two weapon fighting gives him two. It was a logical conclusion to come to.

We also had to make a document for tournaments so that people would know our stance. We were 15 DMs and we all came to the same conclusions. But as tournaments go, sometimes you get up to 20 or 30 different groups (and each groups were usually 5-6 players strong...) That is a lot of people and when we were announcing a tournament, those registering would simply get the document by mail. Yep, mail, not email... Fortunately, the tournament would jusually bring income and would provide money to send these documents to one representative.

 

[Helldritch]

I remember one of my characters got a ring of three wishes once. lol. I think we just didn't assume that anything much above name level really existed in the PC world. There were a few super high level 'retired' PCs that one of my friends and his other group ended up with, but we treated them as sort of just rumors or legends, you never actually met them in any of our games, we just didn't assume things like 20th level PCs really existed.

So, for us anyway, wishing for higher stats wasn't much of a thing. You could of course try it, in a rare case, but IIRC the rule was basically you got 1 point per wish, and then after 16 you got 0.1 points per wish, or something like that. Nobody ever found 10 wishes AFAIK, or if they did they weren't saying. lol. Just slightly different versions of 'high level'. I'm pretty my 14th level wizard was about the pinnacle of PCs in our game. Mike, the GM, definitely had a lot of bad guys gunning for him.

My own character, Helldritch, was a 7th level fighter/20th level MU with awesome stats (15 st, 16 dex, 17 cn and 18 intel, 8 wis and 14 cha) All on 4d6. I have had quite a few of my groups going against Lolth herself in the Demonweb pit and later, some groups even went to the Isle of the Ape. And much later, we saw the almighty Bloodstone Pass from the Battle System and the Mines of Bloodstone... So yes, High level play was a thing. And when you get to these high level, the game can start to break if you go the Monty Haul way. Been there, done that. Won't go there again...

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I agree. That is why when UA came out, it made us "rethink" about the dual weilding rules. Weapon specialization was desirable at it was helping the martial classes a lot at high level but with both hands having the attack rating independently applied, it was wayyyyyy too much. So we restrict it to mean basic attack attack sequence. So a normal human has one attack? Two weapon fighting gives him two. It was a logical conclusion to come to.

We also had to make a document for tournaments so that people would know our stance. We were 15 DMs and we all came to the same conclusions. But as tournaments go, sometimes you get up to 20 or 30 different groups (and each groups were usually 5-6 players strong...) That is a lot of people and when we were announcing a tournament, those registering would simply get the document by mail. Yep, mail, not email... Fortunately, the tournament would jusually bring income and would provide money to send these documents to one representative.

Weapon specialization made the original TWF untenable; heck; I remember the first time I saw the rules for the Kensai and thought ... this isn't going to end well.

When people complain about playing on-line PbP ... they should really go back to the original playing by post. Now that was an exercise in patience!