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

[deganawida]

Long healing times exist for the same reason as long training times when you level up (what Frank Mentzer called "being stuck in training jail"). In combination with 1:1 time, they sideline your characters at various times, so that you have to roll up extra PCs and expand your personal character stable.

Character stables go hand in hand with the relative ease of character death and the fact of demihuman level limits. It spreads out your emotional investment, so that if you lose a character in such a way that they can't be raised, or your favorite elf PC hits their level ceiling and should probably become semi-retired, you still have other active PCs in whom you can remain invested.

(Moreover, in keeping with the sword & sorcery vibe of early D&D, player characters could very well be more like autonomous agents who do comic book team ups only for specific adventures than a continuous, static party. In a situation like that, PC clerics aren't "party clerics" whose duty it is to heal up their permanent allies between adventures. They're servants of their deities who have their own agendas, their own goals and projects between adventures, and there aren't even any guarantees that they're being granted spells between adventures in the first place.)

That last bit is really interesting. I never thought of it that way.

 

[Willie the Duck]

This ties into Oe Eldritch Wizardry where it specified for PC druids "Druids are able to employ the following sorts of weapons: daggers, sickle or crescent-shaped swords, spears, slings, and oil."

Worth noting that oD&D didn't have sickles --or other non-battlefield weapons taken mostly straight from Chainmail, which seems to be the reason that magic users used daggers instead of (the non-existant staves).

 

[Alzrius]

Anyway, while digging up another old thread, I realized that I had a thread about why 1e had all of these weird (to people now) rules. Might be interesting for some of you who didn't catch it the first time.

Or not!

D&D General - And the Druid Explodes: Understanding the AD&D Design Space's Legacy

A few brief words are necessary to insure that the reader has actually obtained a game form which he or she desires. Of the two approaches to hobby games today, one is best defined as the realism-simulation school and the other as the game school. AD&D is assuredly an adherent of the latter...

www.enworld.org

I dunno, man. Some guy made another thread about how you shouldn't trust lawyers who advertise about how useful they can be. Very "sus," as the kids say.

 

[JEB]

Long healing times exist for the same reason as long training times when you level up (what Frank Mentzer called "being stuck in training jail"). In combination with 1:1 time, they sideline your characters at various times, so that you have to roll up extra PCs and expand your personal character stable.

Character stables go hand in hand with the relative ease of character death and the fact of demihuman level limits. It spreads out your emotional investment, so that if you lose a character in such a way that they can't be raised, or your favorite elf PC hits their level ceiling and should probably become semi-retired, you still have other active PCs in whom you can remain invested.

(Moreover, in keeping with the sword & sorcery vibe of early D&D, player characters could very well be more like autonomous agents who do comic book team ups only for specific adventures than a continuous, static party. In a situation like that, PC clerics aren't "party clerics" whose duty it is to heal up their permanent allies between adventures. They're servants of their deities who have their own agendas, their own goals and projects between adventures, and there aren't even any guarantees that they're being granted spells between adventures in the first place.)

Interesting. By coincidence, our original 5e campaign pretty much worked that way (based around an adventurer's guild, different lineups every time, downtime development for inactive characters). It had its upsides and downsides. But neat to know the idea is older than we thought!

 

[James Gasik]

I'm not saying we didn't have lots of characters back in the day, but I never really had the experience of needing to rest up in an inn for weeks at a time. But I never really asked either when I played, I guess it was just assumed to happen offscreen.

As for my own games, even after I stopped running published adventures, I modeled my own after them, so healing was always plentiful. It's possible I was depriving my players of the experience, but I never heard any complaints about it.

In fact, I remember when I started playing 3e, and had the Heal skill, our Rogue got poisoned by giant wasps and was down 7 points of Dexterity and asked if I could heal him. "I said, sure if we take a day or two off so I can use my skill" and the response I got was "what do you mean take a day or two off? Just cast a spell!"

So I don't think my experience was a unique one.

 

[R_J_K75]

Rule/Moster is there a difference? Anyhow, from the AD&D MM2 IIRC was the Executioners Hood, Cloaker-like creature that layed in wait and jumped up to envelope a victims head, suffocate and strangle them, The only way to get them to release their grip was to pour wine on it. Must've been a teetotaler like Hatchet Granny.

 

[James Gasik]

I think upthread someone mentioned monsters with split AC's despite a lack of clear rules about making called shots in AD&D. In 2e, which did have such rules, I recall a battle that had a very strange debate about it.

For reference:

Player: "I want to hit the bulette in the eye, it has lower AC there, right?"

DM: "Yes, it's AC 4, but it's a very small area so you'll need to make a called shot, which is -4 to hit."

Player: "Wait. I need to take a penalty to hit an area with weaker armor?"

Me: "I mean, technically, that's still better than hitting it's AC of -2."

Player: "So what you're really saying is, it's normal AC is -2, it's eyes are AC 0, and under it's crest is AC 2? That doesn't make any sense."

DM: "That's the rules. So where do you want to hit it?"

Player: "Will it be blinded if I hit in the eye?"

DM: "No, that's not how called shots work."

Player: "But I can attack it under it's crest?"

DM: "I'd say this counts as 'intense combat', so sure."

Player: "I do that then, I guess."

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Character stables go hand in hand with the relative ease of character death and the fact of demihuman level limits. It spreads out your emotional investment, so that if you lose a character in such a way that they can't be raised, or your favorite elf PC hits their level ceiling and should probably become semi-retired, you still have other active PCs in whom you can remain invested.


(Moreover, in keeping with the sword & sorcery vibe of early D&D, player characters could very well be more like autonomous agents who do comic book team ups only for specific adventures than a continuous, static party. In a situation like that, PC clerics aren't "party clerics" whose duty it is to heal up their permanent allies between adventures. They're servants of their deities who have their own agendas, their own goals and projects between adventures, and there aren't even any guarantees that they're being granted spells between adventures in the first place.)

In the longest running campaign setting I’ve ever been part of, characters played ranged from L1 newbies to PCs over L20, starting in AD&D, getting converted to 2Ed, and eventually 3.5Ed. The 3 core players rotated DMing duties.

And yes, all of the PCs saw actual play.

FYI, those PCs seemingly on the cusp of becoming divine did NOT always achieve their objectives. Play at that level can suffer from blind spots, hubris & mistaken assumptions just like lower level play. From BOTH sides of the screen.

A favorite mistake: the guy who usually played the highest-level mage was DMing. We eventually encountered a passage in a dungeon the party just could not navigate. We beat our heads against it for half of a session before giving up, retreating and regrouping. Nothing in our bag of tricks* was working. So we went back to base, as it were. Consulting with the DM’s wizard, we were asked why we didn’t simply use a particular spell. That’s when one of the other players pointed out that no other PC knew that spell.**

That was the end of that adventure.






* including a Bag of Tricks.

** Yes, this was the exact same player mentioned a while back who refused to have his PCs share spells.

 

[Jahydin]

Oh boy, how I love posting AD&D's version of Identify :

"Identify (Divination)
level: I
Range: 0
Duration: I segment/level
Area of Effect: One item
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: I turn
Saving Throw: Special
Explanation/Description: When an identify spell is cost, one item may be touched and handled by the magic-user in order that he or she may possibly find what dweomer it possesses. The item in question must be held or worn as would be normal for any such object, i.e. a bracelet must be placed on the spell caster's wrist, a helm on his or her head, boots on the feet, a cloak worn, a dagger held, and so on. Note that any consequences of this use of the item fall fully upon the magic-user, although any saving throw normally allowed is still the privilege of the magic-user. For each segment the spell is in force, it is 15% + 5% per level of the magic-user probable that 1 property of the object touched can become known - possibly that the item has no properties and is merely a ruse (the presence of Nystul's Magic Aura or a magic mouth being detected). Each time a property can be known, the referee will secretly roll to see if the magic-user made his or her saving throw versus magic. If the save was successful, the property is known; if it is 1 point short, a false power will be revealed; and if it is lower than 1 under the required score no information will be gained. The item will never reveal its exact plusses to hit or its damage bonuses, although the fact that it has few or many such plusses can be discovered. If it has charges, the object will never reveal the exact number, but it will give information which is +/-25% of actual, i.e. a wand with 40 charges could feel as if it had 30, or 50, or any number in between. The item to be identified must be examined by the magic-user within 1 hour per level of experience of the examiner after it has been discovered, or all readable impressions will have been blended into those of the characters who have possessed it since. After casting the spell and determining what can be learned from it, the magic-user loses 8 points of constitution. He or she must rest for 6 turns per 1 point in order to regain them. If the 8 point loss drops the spell caster below a constitution of 3, he or she will fall unconscious, and consciousness will not be regained until full constitution is restored 24 hours later. The material components of this spell are a pearl (of at least 100 g.p. value) and an owl feather steeped in wine, with the infusion drunk and a live miniature carp swallowed whole prior to spell casting. If a luckstone is powdered and added to the infusion, probability increases 25% and all saving throws are made at +4." PH pg 67

Absolute work of art.

 

[James Gasik]

Oh boy, how I love posting AD&D's version of Identify :

"Identify (Divination)
level: I
Range: 0
Duration: I segment/level
Area of Effect: One item
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: I turn
Saving Throw: Special
Explanation/Description: When an identify spell is cost, one item may be touched and handled by the magic-user in order that he or she may possibly find what dweomer it possesses. The item in question must be held or worn as would be normal for any such object, i.e. a bracelet must be placed on the spell caster's wrist, a helm on his or her head, boots on the feet, a cloak worn, a dagger held, and so on. Note that any consequences of this use of the item fall fully upon the magic-user, although any saving throw normally allowed is still the privilege of the magic-user. For each segment the spell is in force, it is 15% + 5% per level of the magic-user probable that 1 property of the object touched can become known - possibly that the item has no properties and is merely a ruse (the presence of Nystul's Magic Aura or a magic mouth being detected). Each time a property can be known, the referee will secretly roll to see if the magic-user made his or her saving throw versus magic. If the save was successful, the property is known; if it is 1 point short, a false power will be revealed; and if it is lower than 1 under the required score no information will be gained. The item will never reveal its exact plusses to hit or its damage bonuses, although the fact that it has few or many such plusses can be discovered. If it has charges, the object will never reveal the exact number, but it will give information which is +/-25% of actual, i.e. a wand with 40 charges could feel as if it had 30, or 50, or any number in between. The item to be identified must be examined by the magic-user within 1 hour per level of experience of the examiner after it has been discovered, or all readable impressions will have been blended into those of the characters who have possessed it since. After casting the spell and determining what can be learned from it, the magic-user loses 8 points of constitution. He or she must rest for 6 turns per 1 point in order to regain them. If the 8 point loss drops the spell caster below a constitution of 3, he or she will fall unconscious, and consciousness will not be regained until full constitution is restored 24 hours later. The material components of this spell are a pearl (of at least 100 g.p. value) and an owl feather steeped in wine, with the infusion drunk and a live miniature carp swallowed whole prior to spell casting. If a luckstone is powdered and added to the infusion, probability increases 25% and all saving throws are made at +4." PH pg 67

Absolute work of art.

I mean, come on, we can't let players figure out what their magic items do! They might be able to avoid the cursed/intelligent/mimics in disguise!