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

[Snarf Zagyg]

Fun little fact from AD&D 1E: the two female varieties of demons in the Monster Manual (i.e. the succubus and the "Type V" marilith), were the only kinds that could summon demons stronger than themselves.

I already liked this post, but I wanted to add a separate reply because ...

I did not, in fact, notice that! I love bizarre and obscure rules (or weird cases, or interesting rules), and I usually know them, but this is 100% new to me. Maybe because I have not run demons very often, but still...

Absolute love this! And given that you went off the beaten path, I will salute you with the other Leo toast!

 

[Voadam]

I already liked this post, but I wanted to add a separate reply because ...

I did not, in fact, notice that! I love bizarre and obscure rules (or weird cases, or interesting rules), and I usually know them, but this is 100% new to me. Maybe because I have not run demons very often, but still...

Same.

Or rather I had remembered about succubi being the demonic favors and connections demons in their summoning more powerful things including occasional lords, but not the marilith six-sword general demons being in the same boat and exclusively so.

Looking up Eldritch Wizardry this exclusivity of more powerful summoning seems to be a bit of a 1e change. Type III can summon I-IV in Oe, type IV can summon I-VI, Type V can still summon I-VI and princes, and Type VI can only summon III or IV.

Looking up MC8 the 2e Monstrous Compendium Outer Planes Appendix the summons get redone again with a bit all over the place, succubi only gate in Balor and others mostly pull in things based on whether the summoned ones are lesser, greater, or true tanar'ri (also how many they summon), with a few exceptions specifying specific types. So the general marilith can summon "2-20 least tanar'ri, 1-6 lesser tanar'ri, 1-4 greater tanar'ri, or 1 true tanar'ri once per hour with a 35% chance of success." the Nalfeshnee in contrast "may also attempt to gate in 1-6 babaus or 1 vrock, twice per day, with a 50% chance of success."

 

[James Gasik]

I just had to explain how backstab really works, and apparently this particular rule from the 2e PHB isn't well known, so here we go.

The relevant bit is you can only backstab someone who is surprised, but ambushing does not cause someone to become surprised- the check for that is made after the ambush round!

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I just had to explain how backstab really works, and apparently this particular rule from the 2e PHB isn't well known, so here we go.
View attachment 367682
The relevant bit is you can only backstab someone who is surprised, but ambushing does not cause someone to become surprised- the check for that is made after the ambush round!

In 1e, Gygax (of course!) managed to further ... nerf ... the backstab ability.

By the PHB, it is striking a blow from behind. And striking with surprise from behind will increase the hit probability (adding +4 to the roll). So, you'd think that any strike from behind would qualify, while a strike with surprise gets you a bonus "to hit."

Nope. The DMG further states that any opponent aware of the thief negates the attack. And creatures that negate surprise ... or have no back ... can't be backstabbed.

Oh well!

 

[billd91]

In 1e, Gygax (of course!) managed to further ... nerf ... the backstab ability.

By the PHB, it is striking a blow from behind. And striking with surprise from behind will increase the hit probability (adding +4 to the roll). So, you'd think that any strike from behind would qualify, while a strike with surprise gets you a bonus "to hit."

Nope. The DMG further states that any opponent aware of the thief negates the attack. And creatures that negate surprise ... or have no back ... can't be backstabbed.

Oh well!

Yeah, the 1e thief sucked... and didn't even do that well.

 

[JEB]

Yeah, the 1e thief sucked... and didn't even do that well.

I wonder if this is why Thief was the only class that all non-humans (excepting half-orcs) had unlimited advancement in.

 

[James Gasik]

The 2e Thief isn't any better when it comes to backstabbing targets. You have to attack from behind, the target can't be aware of you, you only get one backstab, you have to be able to reach a vital target, the target has to be humanoid shaped, you must have surprise, the damage multiplier is for the weapon damage only (a small part of AD&D damage all things considered), ambush isn't surprise, surprise is a 3 in 6 chance (maybe), and you still have to hit, with your cruddy Thac0 and only a +2 to hit above anyone else (the +4 the class crows about only replaces the regular +2 for a back attack).

Sure you can ignore Dex...but most monster AC's don't include Dex. Oops!

Relevant Rules Here

 

[billd91]

The 2e Thief isn't any better when it comes to backstabbing targets. You have to attack from behind, the target can't be aware of you, you only get one backstab, you have to be able to reach a vital target, the target has to be humanoid shaped, you must have surprise, the damage multiplier is for the weapon damage only (a small part of AD&D damage all things considered), ambush isn't surprise, surprise is a 3 in 6 chance (maybe), and you still have to hit, with your cruddy Thac0 and only a +2 to hit above anyone else (the +4 the class crows about only replaces the regular +2 for a back attack).

Sure you can ignore Dex...but most monster AC's don't include Dex. Oops!

Relevant Rules Here

Oh the surprise chance could be a little better than 3 in 6. For one thing, surprise in 2e was 1-3 on a d10. Then, if the thief succeeded in their stealthy skills (which they could better optimize), they could improve that another 4 points for 6 in 10.

 

[Jack Daniel]

▯

 

[Riley]

I've always assumed that it has to do with the thief being a relatively late addition to the lineup and one that doesn't get a lot of temporal power in the late game (like a Lord's castle and mercenary army, a Patriarch's temple and zealot army, or a Wizard's tower and apprentices and special dispensation not to be bothered by feudal authorities and maybe a dungeon-fulla-monsters under the tower).

Master Thieves get to run a guild, pull heists, do more treasure hunting (not much different from low-level PCs), and at best they might become a spymaster in service to a Lord (or other name-level type) or some kind of scheming power-behind-the-throne.

We assumed Greyhawk’s ‘Bandit Kingdoms’ were ruled by high level, semi-retired adventuring thieves.

It gave us something to aspire to.