Well, obviously the rule didn't make sense! Clearly, people would go back and forth between player and DM (and Gygax himself did that), so .... I mean .... in fairness, a lot of players didn't read the DMG, but it's still really stupid.
That's the big example. But there's a fair number of small examples. The PHB only talks about finding and removing traps- the DMG says that this is also the ability to SET TRAPS for thieves and assassins, and, in addition, the assassin can perform this at two levels higher than their actual level (whereas the PHB says that all functions, other than backstabbing, are at two levels lower).
Strangely, yeah, no more hidden features. But many hidden strings attached to abilities the PHB promises you. There's a whole section devoted to finding out what kinds of followers will show up if you bother to set up a keep that isn't in the PHB for example. And several examples of abilities that you technically have, but have to work to get. Like this one:
Haha, you thought you were getting free horse? Be prepared to spend 2 or more weeks possibly having to duel Warduke himself to get a horse ("What, he's not impossible to defeat!"), and then you get to do it again in 10 years!
As I noted in the (likely ill-fated) Paladin origins thread, I think it's amusing that the Aura of Courage which is a staple Paladin ability these days wasn't part of the 1e PHB Paladin, but was actually leeched from the Cavalier! And the "circle of power" (Protection From Evil) first got nerfed to a mere -1 to hit in 2e, and then sort of merged with the +2 bonus on saving throws to become the accursed Charisma to saves party buff we have now.
Which is only not a game breaking ability in 5e because, from what I've seen, the place any player wants to be in combat is as far from the Paladin as possible!
I don't disagree, but I think that this makes little sense to modern players because rolling for your character's abilities is always done by the player.
In addition, it's weird that it's done for all abilities. While it makes sense for some at some times, for others it is kind of odd. Open locks?
In addition, the sheer amount of constraints that are put on climbing walls (the most abused thief ability?) means that the poor AD&D thief whose DM follows the DMG guidelines will be spared a death from a poor roll on disarming a trap, because they will get killed climbing a wall first.
I don't disagree, but I think that this makes little sense to modern players because rolling for your character's abilities is always done by the player.
In addition, it's weird that it's done for all abilities. While it makes sense for some at some times, for others it is kind of odd. Open locks?
In addition, the sheer amount of constraints that are put on climbing walls (the most abused thief ability?) means that the poor AD&D thief whose DM follows the DMG guidelines will be spared a death from a poor roll on disarming a trap, because they will get killed climbing a wall first.
Oh no arguments about how miserable it is to play a Thief if the rules are being fully employed. I've commented about that at length elsewhere on the forum, and I usually have old-school players try to argue with me that no, really, all Thieves were 100% invisible backstabbing machines that destroyed everyone in their games, lol.
So it turns out I was wrong, there are other hidden class abilities. Gary goes on for about half a page in the DMG about how "Only clerics, excluding druids, are able to prepare holy water" and the process is so intensive I wish I could go back in time and remind him that I can just buy vials of the stuff for 25 gp according to the PHB.
Also spell research is another "hidden" ability, discussed in the usual "treat players like they are entitled, spoiled children who need some learnin'" Gygaxian prose, as follows:
Although this runs into the issue of DM adjudication. The spell description states that it creates a globe of light. whether it has a specific source and/or can be blocked by physical barriers (like said scroll tube) isn't clear. IIRC, one of the Gygax adjacent folks (Mentzer, I think, or maybe Mornard) stated that Gary played it that the radius would even go through walls, possibly tipping off enemies in other rooms to your presence.
Unless you're a monk!
Why? Because monks can't use oil. PHB, Table II.
Now, I have to admit, this is a strange restriction (luckily, the prohibition on "oil" is briefly, but further, explained in the Monk class as "and not even flaming oil is usable by them.").
To this day, I still cannot understand why, other than sheer Gygaxian arbitrariness. Even if you try to explain it as, "But monks wouldn't torch a dude!" that would fly in the face of a person who primarily used monks as the Nazi Big Bads of his world.
The entire 'X class can't/won't ____{specific weapons, etc.}' always seemed to me to be some of the more gamist rules, in a 'these-are-board-game-pieces' manner. The rook moves in diagonals because that sets up in-game variation, so to with magic users using daggers and the monk not using oil.
I don't think it is just magic users. Certainly thieves also had a lot of rules making sure that attempting the tasks in which they are entrusted is a recipe for disaster. Characters with any complex rules seemed to invite making their best course of action not to use their abilities.
Also NWPs being 100% optional and one of two major methods in 2E, is something I think a lot of people missed (I have gamed with a number of folks who seemed to think they were core to the game----but most modules I played didn't even bother with them).
I think that is because Kits themselves were optional (even each of those books were fully optional----which definitely meant more back in the TSR days) and NWPs were pretty good tools for the kind of customization they wanted in those brown books. When I was playing it was standard for the GM to vet and often deny any kit a player might propose (either because it didn't fit the setting or was deemed imbalancing)
I do remember quite liking the Complete Bard's Handbook
I've not run into people who didn't know it, but I think a lot of people didn't really care -- they were the character-building components you could actually choose, so darn right you were going to do so. Fundamentally, I think 2E had two different flavors it tried to support at once -- 1) themed characters, self- or campaign-specific constraints, and customization; and 2) the same dungeon crawls and deadly monsters as before. Exactly how NWPs or savage kit PCs using stone daggers or rapier-wielding swashbucklers were supposed to interact with level-drain-on-hit undead or instant-death poison traps or the same old treasure tables was always somewhere between a mystery and 'each table will figure something out.'
I would say that if your game only has a couple of numbers that define the entirety of your physical, mental and spiritual state, a score to define how beautiful or attractive you are simply doesn't cut it.
But the core idea, that surface attractiveness is not the same thing as charisma and force of personality, is still valid. My go to example to explain the difference is Hollywood actors. Some daytime soap opera actors are genuinely and unquestionably attractive people, but they can't hold a candle personality-wise to great actors whose high Charisma is not in doubt but that aren't considered "conventionally attractive".
Bringing up male examples is much easier, so Al Pacino or Harvey Keitel would have sky high Charisma scores but not necessarily very high Comeliness scores. Somebody like Glen Powell or Colin Farell would.
In real life, the very first impression you make is super important. But if you want to model the unfairness inherent in beauty standards, you could use Comeliness to represent that surface-deep first impression (including things like clothing and the way you present yourself). If you actually start talking to the person, Comeliness would quickly (very quickly) fade into irrelevance as Charisma takes over.
Skipping this is entirely reasonable, just like you might skip bathroom breaks. For many types of campaigns, there is zero reason to include Comeliness. But for some types of campaigns, it definitely can play a role. I'm not necessarily thinking about a game set in Hollywood, but for a classic Sword & Sorcery campaign, or other campaign involving body horror, I could definitely see myself using it or something like it.
I think this highlights how the entire attribute concept is kinda arbitrary. If this synopsis is accurate, the pre-oD&D attribute list included everything from strength and health to looks and credibility to horsemanship. I don't feel that the average D&D game has enough use for looks to make it worth 1/6 or 1/7 of a total, but overall I don't think there's a strong enough through-line of 'this is what an attribute should be' to specifically exclude looks either.
Strangely, yeah, no more hidden features. But many hidden strings attached to abilities the PHB promises you. There's a whole section devoted to finding out what kinds of followers will show up if you bother to set up a keep that isn't in the PHB for example. And several examples of abilities that you technically have, but have to work to get. Like this one:
View attachment 365384
Haha, you thought you were getting free horse? Be prepared to spend 2 or more weeks possibly having to duel Warduke himself to get a horse ("What, he's not impossible to defeat!"), and then you get to do it again in 10 years!
Yes, yes I did think I was getting a free horse it said so in my PHB. Then my DM pointed out this rule in the DMG. I probably sulked more than was really called for, but that was such a bummer.
I was actually about to grab my 1st edition books to note this rule as well.
