D&D 1E Favorite Obscure Rules from TSR-era D&D

OTOH, as near as I can tell, he uses Comeliness entirely as a shorthand for "how attractive this person is".
That's what Comeliness is, isn't it - a pure measure of attractiveness?
I've played with 1e Rangers, 1e Monks, Cavaliers*, Paladin Cavaliers**,

*Hate them.
**Hate them more.
Huh. Cavalier was the only UA class we thought worth keeping; and its percentile-increment mechanic for slowly increasing stats as you level is pure brilliance: we applied it to all classes as soon as we saw it!

I never made Paladins a Cavalier subclass, though; I just kept both as equal sub-classes in the warrior group, along with Ranger. Our other main DM ditched Paladins and replaced them with Cavalier-Cleric hybrids.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

That's what Comeliness is, isn't it - a pure measure of attractiveness?
What I mean, is, he doesn't seem to use any of the mechanics associated with the score, simply using it as a gauge. Like say Intelligence didn't do anything mechanically , but you wanted a shorthand for saying "this guy is smart", so you said "he has a 19 Intelligence".
Huh. Cavalier was the only UA class we thought worth keeping; and its percentile-increment mechanic for slowly increasing stats as you level is pure brilliance: we applied it to all classes as soon as we saw it!

I never made Paladins a Cavalier subclass, though; I just kept both as equal sub-classes in the warrior group, along with Ranger. Our other main DM ditched Paladins and replaced them with Cavalier-Cleric hybrids.
So, in no particular order, here are my issues with the Cavalier. Some are minor, some are major.

1-introduce sub-levels that only exist for this class alone. Like, a character without a class is 0 level, but somehow these fellows start at level -2? If you want "apprentice levels" to be a thing, why only for one class? If you want to say "well, you can't start as a full Knight at level 1", so? The game has a concept of "name level" already. And if you are an apprentice, you shouldn't be adventuring, you should be following around a Knight as their squire. This isn't a unique issue- Unearthed Arcana was a lot of experimental ideas about how classes can work, like how the Bard, the Thief-Acrobat, and the Cavaladin are sort of previews for the prestige classes we'd get much, much later. Oriental Adventures and Dragonlance Adventures have other experimental concepts like the Ninja being a "half-class" and the ascending Solamnic Knightly Orders. It's not that I can't appreciate tinkering with new ideas, but this is one that sticks out like a sore thumb.

1b- of course, the sub-levels only exist if you're of low social standing. Because it's not enough that you have ability score requirements, you have to luck out and roll well on the social standing chart (a 20% chance) to actually be a level 1 character! Many words have been typed over the years about adventuring and nobles, but my main issue is that this is another "Gygaxian slot machine" like exceptional Strength or psionics to muddy up character creation. Oh and an NPC has to vouch for your lower class Cavalier. No idea what that entails- do I have to rp this somehow? Go on an adventure? It's totally DM fiat as far as I can tell...or flavor text, it's hard to be certain.

1c- Cavalier starting hit points. Ok, so this is kind of messed up. If you start at level -2 (0-level horseman) you have a d4+1 hit points (plus Con bonus). After earning 1000 xp, you earn another d4 Hit Die (but no Con bonus). As near as I can tell, you don't get more hit points for reaching level 1 (another 500 xp).

But wait! If you are one of the chosen 20% you start off with a d10+3+Con...for a class that presumably has 12-sided Hit Dice?! Yes, I know, Dragon Magazine later said this was an error and the class has a d10 Hit Die, but I didn't have that issue when I was playing 1e, lol. Still, the fact that it was an error means I don't need a 1d where I gripe about why this class has a d12 Hit Die, lol.

2- race restrictions are always a weird thing. Why can race X be a member of a class but not Y? But right off the bat, we have Drow Cavaliers? Eh? Now maybe there's a setting or adventure where mounted Drow feature prominently that I missed (I mean, Drow have gone through a lot of changes over the years- I remember in D1 where they used javelins and atlatls, and who can forget that time Lolth had a male Cleric in the Moathouse of Hommlet?), but it seems a bad fit for a sneaky, Chaotic Evil, poison loving race. Yeah, Drow Rangers, I know, I know. But meanwhile, Duergar, who are at least Lawful and known for riding steeders, can't be Cavaliers? Huh.

3- On that topic, Chaotic Cavaliers always struck me as weird. I should point out you can be an evil Cavalier, but I don't suggest it. It's just bad.

4- Cavaliers are better than Fighters. The rationale here is that they train harder than lowly Fighters, I guess. This comes in a few ways. Adding your level to lance damage is in theory kind of busted, but I can let that slide- how often can you be on horse back, how likely you are to become a high level Cavalier, etc.. Cavaliers are better at the parrying subsystem. Sure, I guess. Cavaliers are +1 on the ol' combat matrix on horseback. Again, not a big deal. Cavaliers naturally get better ability scores as they rise in levels- hold up. What? So in a game where ability score bonuses are only allowed via magic (or in the cast of mental stats, getting old), here we have another "slot machine" mechanic that will let the Cavalier naturally go from 15 to 18 (00) in Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution!? Even breaking the good ol' race and gender limits!

Oh and hey, we're also immune to fear and have an aura that protects allies from fear, and of course Cavaliers have 90% immunity to many mind-affecting effects (but not high Comeliness, lol) and a +2 on saves vs. Illusions (because Illusionists need them nerfs, lol)! Cavaliers also don't die the same way as other mere mortals, being able to survive when reaching a negative hit point total equal to their 1st-level hit point total! They also get an extra d4 hit points back per week of natural healing. How? Why? Don't worry about it! Well at least they can't specialize in weapons, so there's that.

If you've been following the endless debate about "nonsensical" Background Features in the "Do you plan on switching to 2024 edition?" thread (or whatever it's really called), then we have this fun tidbit:
2024-05-28_042151.jpg

Well at least it mentions political divisions so you can't hit up Strahd von Zarovich for free room and board in Castle Ravenloft, lol.

4b- but hey, it's not all roses. We have a serious downside as well- for those first few levels, to level up we have to find a Cavalier 2 levels higher than we are, until level 6, when our normal training regiment is good enough to advance in levels, unlike those other character classes who need to pony up training costs and maybe even duel higher level rivals!

4c- Cavaliers are super good at mounted combat. This isn't really an issue, I mean, this is their schtick. The only eyebrow raise here is 4th level elven maidens being able to ride unicorns. As expected of a mounted class, your warhorse is just better than everyone else's- not only can you look at a horse and know that it has higher than average hit points or not, just for riding it, your mount gets 2 more hit points per Hit Die...but not over the maximum hit point total. Ok sure. And yeah, at levels 7 and up, we have the option to ride increasingly fantastical and flying mounts, but I'm not sure you're going to hit that level anyways.

5- Cavaliers have strange thought processes. Gotta have full plate armor. What, you got Field Plate +3? Nope, gotta chuck it, Full Plate +0 is obviously superior! But wait, it doesn't stop there!
2024-05-28_043236.jpg

Yes, that's right. In combat, you don't get to run your character, you have a pre-programmed script you need to follow. Doing this ensures that you always rush the strongest foe on the battlefield before being allowed to take on "lesser foes". So got an archmage hiding behind some ogres? Got to kill them ogres first! Unless you're playing bodyguard, then if they get in trouble, you have to rush to save them, no matter how many rounds of free attacks or other tactical considerations are required!

And then there's your Code of Conduct. Now, the one given is a sample. The DM can make their own. But when I saw Cavaliers played, the DM's apparently went with the example. If you violate your code, you can earn less, or even no experience points for doing so. And the sample code basically says you would rather die before dishonoring yourself, and of course, running away from a fight is dishonorable!

Thus, the reason why despite all my nitpicks, the Cavalier is basically doomed. Many are the DM's who say "the world is the world" and don't segregate high level monsters away from low level characters. I've seen and heard about many "teaching experiences" over the decades.

But with the Cavalier, it matters not. You see a great wyrm red dragon? You're first level? Charge! No retreat, no surrender!
 

Thus, the reason why despite all my nitpicks, the Cavalier is basically doomed. Many are the DM's who say "the world is the world" and don't segregate high level monsters away from low level characters. I've seen and heard about many "teaching experiences" over the decades.

But with the Cavalier, it matters not. You see a great wyrm red dragon? You're first level? Charge! No retreat, no surrender!

Yet another example of why UA is fundamentally broken. Cavaliers don't work in a D&D party. Because of the weird Gygaxian gatekeeping (see also, Paladins, Barbarians).

@Lanefan I hated the incremental ability score improvement for two reasons. First, because it only applied to one class* (which doesn't work and can't be played if you follow the rules). Second, because it foreshadowed the ASI/ ability treadmill that we see later. Personally, I prefer that abilities remain relatively static, and that you get better at stuff as you level. But that battle has long been lost!


*Okay, two classes since the Paladin got them since it was moved to a subclass of Cavalier.
 



Yeah, the ASI treadmill has gotten ridiculous. Every melee combatant ends up with a 20 strength, every wizard 20 intelligence, etc. There’s no more diversity in character attributes.
That's the main reason I always advocate decoupling attack accuracy from stats for modern D&D. It removes the mechanical pressure to always raise stats at the expense of more interesting, versatile feats.
 

There's a great blog post about this over here:

Delta had some good thoughts on this as well. These guys (and other OSR thinkers) have convinced me that it was an error for AD&D and later editions to nerf and then eliminate this rule, though I like the idea of having it scale so the ability isn't suddenly switched off when you encounter Gnolls (or even Hobgoblins!), which also come in large groups. Dividing the monsters' HD into the Fighter's level for number of attacks is one good approach I've seen.


Just though of another one. Spell immunities for high ability scores (2e). First, we have this straighforward (if unfair to the illusion school in general) table for Intelligence:
View attachment 364716
But then, when it comes to Wisdom, rather than saying "xth-level Enchantments", we get this bespoke list of spells and magic item effects that covers only specific spells and isn't future-proofed for new spells and magic items at all!
View attachment 364717
Not to mention some lolrandom choices like Ray of Enfeeblement (I'm so wise you can't make me weak!) and Death Spell? What are we saying, that Death spell is only trying to convince you that you're dead? lol.

I would love to hear who thought this was a good idea and what their thought processes were.
This is another 2E rule brought over almost unchanged from 1E. Deities and Demigods, specifically.

D&DG Int and Wis.JPG

I think it's the same passage. That bit stood out to me as I read it. I prefer it, honestly, because it means the referee has more ability to modulate the magic in the game. If you find certain spells problematic you can simply not have them in your game. If the MU has the ability to just pick a spell then it becomes a conversation about house rules, banning spells, and players being mad. So much easier to just not present a spell.
I hate it, because it's another place where 2E completely fails to give good or clear guidance to the DM. There's not even a recommendation of best practices. They could easily have kept the 1E rule but clarified it by saying that the DM chooses, to accommodate your concerns. Or done so but given advice to the DM that it's ok to take requests from the player, and to make sure that a single-classed M-U gets a good spell because they're reliant on those spells, like Mentzer advised in the 1983 basic set DM's book.

At least the 2e DMG isn't saying that NPC's will never ever ever share spells with your PC unless you literally save their lives or give them a powerful magic item, and that PC's swapping spells should be hit over the head with a tire iron!*

*This may not be the actual text from the 1e DMG, but then again, the 1e DMG states that any player who dares look upon it's pages deserves a less than noble demise, so...
It's funny because the 1E says that "Superior players will certainly co-operate; thus, spells will in all probability be exchanged between PC magic-users to some extent. No special sanctions need be taken to prevent such exchange - although this cooperation should never be suggested or otherwise encouraged, either."

Couple more things, and something I need explained, because I think I know what Gary is saying, but it's still pretty weird.

First up, not too obscure, because this was the way the game was for a very long time, but it feels like something that got lost and if anyone noticed, I haven't heard any comments about- losing your Dex bonus to AC!
View attachment 364780
I think we lost it in 4e, where instead there was the generic "combat advantage" for situations like that.

Next, a rare moment of Gary saying "do what you want" in the attack matrices section:
View attachment 364781
So give Fighters 1 better "to hit" per level, or +2 at even levels, or hey, don't give them a better to hit at all?! Yikes.
Yes, in 2018 a a pre-publication draft of OD&D came to light in which we learned that the original intent was for Fighters to get +1 to hit per level, and the delayed jumps forward at certain levels were a consequence of trying to compact the tables to fit into the LBBs! In AD&D we knew that Len Lakofka introduced new "official but optional" tables advancing +1 every level in a 1983 Dragon article, but we didn't find out for sure that this had been the ORIGINAL intent until 35 years later!

I always had an unreasonable love for the gemstone tables in the DMG--both suggested magical effects of, and the random rolling for gemstone value with its long-tail distribution, and the occasional spell or magic item that requires whole gemstones of a certain value to work, not just powdered.
Good call. I still make use of these for gemstone treasures. :)

See, I "graduated" from the red box to AD&D 1e pretty late in 1e's run- I've never played the game without Unearthed Arcana! And even though 2e came out not long after, we continued to use a lot of AD&D stuff in our games-
Same. Unearthed Arcana was actually the first AD&D book I had! So I was a bit handicapped in how long it took to realize that nearly everything it is is trash. (Basically there's a lot of good art, but the rules are virtually all unplayable and/or actively make your game worse to include).
 

I'm of the opinion that Unearthed Arcana can't really be decoupled from the circumstances surrounding its production, which is that Gygax had just gotten informed that TSR was going broke and the Blume Brothers were "shopping it around" for sale, causing him to rush back from California and throw together UA from some old Dragon articles because he (Gygax) knew that his name still moved books, giving TSR a much-needed cash infusion.

I'm not saying this is an excuse for the low quality, of course, just an explanation.
 

I'm of the opinion that Unearthed Arcana can't really be decoupled from the circumstances surrounding its production, which is that Gygax had just gotten informed that TSR was going broke and the Blume Brothers were "shopping it around" for sale, causing him to rush back from California and throw together UA from some old Dragon articles because he (Gygax) knew that his name still moved books, giving TSR a much-needed cash infusion.

I'm not saying this is an excuse for the low quality, of course, just an explanation.
Oh, to be sure! It's a bit ironic that it's the original and perhaps the truest example of a "cash grab" splatbook.
 

Yet another example of why UA is fundamentally broken. Cavaliers don't work in a D&D party. Because of the weird Gygaxian gatekeeping (see also, Paladins, Barbarians).

@Lanefan I hated the incremental ability score improvement for two reasons. First, because it only applied to one class* (which doesn't work and can't be played if you follow the rules). Second, because it foreshadowed the ASI/ ability treadmill that we see later. Personally, I prefer that abilities remain relatively static, and that you get better at stuff as you level. But that battle has long been lost!
We took percentile increments and applied them to all classes, and it works great. Your primary stat has to advance, and you pick one or two others (once, after which that choice is forever locked in) to also advance. If you pick two others and thus have three advancing, they all advance slower.

The only major knock-on effect was that in order to make this work consistently we had to rework exceptional Strength for Fighters and make each "step" into its own integer; meaning 18.00 becomes 24 and the old 19 becomes 25.

What I like about how the percentile-increment system works is:
--- it's slow; much slower than the WotC-era level-based ASIs - over 10 levels a character will likely see its primary stat go up by 1 (maybe 2 if you're lucky!) and may or may not see a secondary stat increase at all
--- it's random; your starting point is a randomly-rolled percent value and you advance each level from there, with the amount of advancement at each level also determined by dice roll.
--- the timing of stat advancement is unpredictable; you might bump a stat at 2nd level, or you might not bump one until 8th
--- it reflects the physical-mental development one would expect as one gets better at doing whatever one does, while also recognizing that development isn't necessarily going to happen at the same rate or timing for everyone.
 

Remove ads

Top