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

[Alzrius]

2e, over the course of its life cycle, threw a lot of stuff on the walls. Some of that stuff stuck and made it into 3e. For example, I think touch AC was an idea from Spells & Magic.

I'm pretty sure attacks of opportunity were from Combat & Tactics, for that matter.

 

[Lanefan]

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

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.

The last sentence is, I think, his way of saying "you could elect to stick with the combat matrix as-is", as these are both alternative suggestions.

And finally, on the same page, but weirder:
View attachment 364782
I think someone mentioned this upthread, and I skimmed past it, but now it's staring me in the face. If I'm reading this right, some races can't be 0-level? And NPC half-orcs are monsters? What?!

Yes. Any Dwarves, Elves, and Gnomes you meet out there are going to be the equivalent of 1st level (but in what class?); or in other words full 1 HD creatures. Humans and Hobbits can be less than a full HD, expressed here as 0th level. It seems Dwarves etc. either don't have commoners or don't let their commoners out of doors.

And Half-Orcs were often included with Orcs as foes in early adventures, so defining the NPC ones as monsters made it easier (if less consistent!) for the DM. Of course, those consistency problems then arise when the PCs decide to start hiring the monsters who surrender to them, and go on to make adventurers or henches out of them.

 

[Lanefan]

2e, over the course of its life cycle, threw a lot of stuff on the walls. Some of that stuff stuck and made it into 3e. For example, I think touch AC was an idea from Spells & Magic.

Touch AC and flat-footed (or "surprised") AC) are merely codifications of what we'd already been doing for years at the time: showing what defenses apply and don't apply if something catches you off guard, or if something is simply trying to touch you. One of 3e's better ideas, that, and trivially easy to adapt for 1e.

 

[James Gasik]

I'm pretty sure attacks of opportunity were from Combat & Tactics, for that matter.

And if nothing else, it retains the functionality of the free attack you give foes for retreating.

 

[Staffan]

I'm pretty sure attacks of opportunity were from Combat & Tactics, for that matter.

Attacks of opportunity as such, yeah I think so. They were an evolution of the rule that if you were in melee with a foe and wanted not to be in melee with them anymore, you had two options. You could Withdraw safely at half speed, though unless someone else was keeping the foe occupied they were allowed to follow. Or you could Flee, which would give your opponent a full round's worth of attacks against your back.

 

[Gus L]

I personally find that simple rules that actually have subtle and interesting effects on the game are the most valuable*

My favorite edition and rules are all from OD&D's Little Brown Books (Greyhawk doesn't exits for me - I deny it is real except for the page including harquebuses as ranged weapons - that can stay). One example is these lovely tidbits:

So surprise is very powerful, but for the party, the chance of it largely exists as a benefit for picking the locks on locked doors or successfully smashing open a stuck door on the first try. Monsters of course can all see in the dark and get a chance at surprise a lot (opening a potential for scouting and spells that scout...). Of course reaction tables means few monsters attack instantly (as BECMI and later editions love saying with the added ... "until dead") except...

Meaning that the 2 in 6 chance of surprise is also a way to increase monster aggression, beyond the 2 on the 2D6 reaction roll ... but not always for intelligent monsters. It's a few elegant changes based on the way light works in a game without common darkvision for PCs - that it makes things tricky for players is evidenced by the speed that infravision becomes popular among Gygax's players and the D&D community.

These rules though are easy to adapt to any edition where you use reaction rolls and want to add danger or encourage risk taking exploration.

So also have so many knock-on effects and implications that haven't really been explored. They potentially give a role to thieves or other sneaky types (if you let them hide in shadows - see in dim light to avoid surprise while scouting). Without eliminating darkvision though surprise is still good, unless the whole party has it, but is they are ignored surprise becomes largely a base benefit to the players or at most a random risk - they are usually willing to take the risk of being surprised to gain the advantage of getting it. Plus the reaction roll - with its tendency to prevent combat becomes more dominant.

I think anyone who wants a tense dungeon crawls ... survival horror as the youth say ... can adopt these rules to good effect. I love these kinds of little rules that neatly fit into the whole edifice of rules for big effects. Underworld & Wilderness Adventures (an LBB) is FULL of them, and well worth a careful read if you know how your later editions work. Look at Philotomy's Musings if you want some more theoretical examples, and the Necropraxis blog.

*So pretty much nothing from BECMI (Some interesting stuff in Companion) or AD&D - which too often feels like silly minutia that takes up time and mental energy for very little benefit - though the essays in the DMG are worthwhile. I know I am really down on AD&D and Greyhawk... but Gygax was a great dungeon designer, had amazing theories about setting and a mostly good promoter so cheer him for that - not the kludge of his combat rules, or multiclassing, or polearm obession...

 

[Gus L]

The price is in the equipment guide in the PH (page 36, under 'miscellaneous'), at 1 g.p. per flask. And yes, oil is useful stuff at very low level.

Prices in early editions are very weird for a "dungeon crawl" game - or even one about bands of heroes fighting monsters, especially with the general loose encumbrance of those editions. When one combines how cheap equipment is with how much gold you need to level (and the treasure tables theoretically offer) it's easy to suspect something weird is going on.

My own guess is that the reward and equipment bits of early D&D (also note there's a persistent rumor I can't track down that the D&D equipment price tables are based on prices in a 19th century Sears catalogue... with 1GP = $1 ... presumably a gold Eagle?) are for a war game....

That is the dungeon crawl is sort of a diversion or mini game where heroes and squad leaders from your fantasy domain go into a place to grab loot that is largely intended to pay for troops. Like Plate Mail is only 50GP, meaning a level 2 fighter could spend all the gold the got leveling and have a collection of 40 suits of the best non-magical armor - disregarding the cost of walk in armor closets. Instead imagine that the 2,000 GP is recovered and you're trying to equip an army. Hiring Heavy Infantry in OD&D costs a mere 3GP a month ... but I assume they don't come with equipment. So that 2nd level fighter could instead pay for a squad of equipped heavy infantry (upkeep/pay @3GP, plate mail @50GP, Helmet @10 GP, Shield @10GP, Sword @10 GP, 4 rations @20 GP = 103GP each). Our Level 2 Fighter can lead a band of 15 0-level Heavy infantry at this point and still have a few hundred gold to spend on fancy hats...

I can't prove this of course, though the "First Campaign" or whatever about Arneson's Blackmoor suggests something of the sort, but to me the rules structure around logistics and equipment cost makes sense in this context, and I think those are things that were very important to the designers wargamer souls.

Of course D&D and RPGs went another way - because exploring dungeons and playing as one character in a basically heroic, novelistic fantasy was more popular then running PvP domain wargame campaigns.

 

[Voadam]

Typo fixed, thanks.


Fair question! It does not explicitly say so here. I infer it from a few things.

1. The phrasing- the magic-user adds the spell. This implies to me that it is a product of their research and study to gain the level.
2. They are not described as being granted one by their master. And in fact there may be no master, as the training rules specify that if you have a performance rating of 1 or 2, or if you've reached name level, you don't need one. Contrast this to 1st level, where the DMG explicitly outlines how to determine which spells their master gave them. And also to B/X, for example, where an MU or Elf is described as always being trained by a higher level master (though B/X specifies that either the player or DM may choose the new spell). If they're not being given one by a master, then I infer that it must be the product of their research.
3. It's also implied by the PH section on % chance to know spells under Intelligence, which tells us under the Chance to Know Each Listed Spell entry (PH 10) that the player selects spells in any desired order to check their ability to learn them.

It is unspecified so up to a DM call for their campaign.

Yours is not an unreasonable inference, I and those I knew just made different ones such as masterless levelling MU research was magical research in general and so discoveries were surprise breakthroughs where your research led.

It's a weird meta-procedure, but I've heard of some folks going through a process that whenever an MU gains a new spell level (including at character creation) they go through the list of all spells for that level (in any order they wish, per the above reference) and determine all the ones their character can know. And that they don't actually add the spells to their book until they find them or acquire them on gaining a level, but once they either find it or gain a level, they can add a spell they've passed that check on to their book.

That was my interpretation too from the 1e intelligence chart explanation language.

Minimum Number of Spells/Level states the fewest number of spells by level group a magic-user can learn. If one complete check through the entire group fails to generate the minimum number applicable according to intelligence score, the character may selectively go back through the group, checking each spell not able to be learned once again. This process continues until the minimum number requirement has been fulfilled. This means, then, that certain spells, when located, can be learned — while certain other spells can never be learned and the dice rolls indicate which ones are in each category. Example: The magic-user mentioned above who was unable to learn a charm person spell also fails to meet the minimum number of spells he or she can learn. The character then begins again on the list of 1st level spells, opts to see if this time charm person is able to be learned, rolls 04, and has acquired the ability to learn the spell. If and when the character locates such a spell, he or she will be capable of learning it.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

The price is in the equipment guide in the PH (page 36, under 'miscellaneous'), at 1 g.p. per flask. And yes, oil is useful stuff at very low level.

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.

 

[fuindordm]

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.