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

[James Gasik]

Continual light stones at 3rd level it is.

I like the Cadderly trick- put your continual light source inside a scroll tube. Instant flashlight!

 

[Mannahnin]

For me, this is where checking 2E comes in handy. The notion of one new spell on gaining levels is removed and all spells are taught by your mentor or found through adventuring. Revised PHB, p108.

I'm not a fan of removing the ability of MUs to gain a new spell when training themselves to gain a level. IMO this is another place where 2E gives PCs an unwarranted downgrade.

The original print of the 2E PH, page 81, is a little more obnoxious, in specifying that it's totally up to the DM whether you get any more spells when you level up. Whether you may be able to return to your master and be given "a few spells" to add to your book, or whether you need to find them from adventuring or get them from other PCs.

 

[James Gasik]

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:

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!

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.

 

[overgeeked]

I'm not a fan of removing the ability of MUs to gain a new spell when training themselves to gain a level. IMO this is another place where 2E gives PCs an unwarranted downgrade.

The original print of the 2E PH, page 81, is a little more obnoxious, in specifying that it's totally up to the DM whether you get any more spells when you level up. Whether you may be able to return to your master and be given "a few spells" to add to your book, or whether you need to find them from adventuring or get them from other PCs.

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.

 

[James Gasik]

I'm not a fan of removing the ability of MUs to gain a new spell when training themselves to gain a level. IMO this is another place where 2E gives PCs an unwarranted downgrade.

The original print of the 2E PH, page 81, is a little more obnoxious, in specifying that it's totally up to the DM whether you get any more spells when you level up. Whether you may be able to return to your master and be given "a few spells" to add to your book, or whether you need to find them from adventuring or get them from other PCs.

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...

 

[overgeeked]

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 in 2E as well. It's mentioned in the PHB and DMG, if I recall.

ETA: Nope. I'm misremembering. It's way more obnoxious in AD&D 1E.

 

[deganawida]

This excludes melee combat with monsters (q.v.) of less than one hit die (d8) and non-exceptional (0 level) humans and semi-humans, i.e. all creatures with less than one eight-sided hit die. All of these creatures entitle a fighter to attack once for each of his or her experience levels.

My first read through of 1e is like being back in college, with all the cf., q.v., i.e., and e.g. notations.

 

[James Gasik]

Speaking of having a choice of spells, here's a fun table from Forgotten Realms Adventures, not only providing a random list of spells, but dividing them by rarity so a DM can know what spells a PC should probably not have full access to!

Ha, I just saw where Leomund's Tiny Hut got placed.

 

[Weiley31]

I knew about Elves but never realized Half-Orcs had the same limitation.

IIRC, the Fey also had such a limitations too.

 

[Alzrius]

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.

Fun fact: you could have ability scores of up to 20 at character creation in Dark Sun, but if I recall correctly, it explicitly said that you didn't get these benefits if you had an Intelligence or Wisdom that high.