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

[James Gasik]

This doesn't quite qualify as an obscure rule, but I loved the Etiquette non-Weapon Proficiency. For me it also captures the fundamental difference in approach to this stuff between TSR and WOTC era:

View attachment 364921

View attachment 364922

The entry was a little different I believe in the 1989 edition of the PHB (this is the black cover revised that came out in the mid-90s). But don't feel like digging for that in my stack of books.

I just like that it preserves the RP by having it function more like a knowledge skill

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).

It is interesting that modules didn't bother with them, but many products post-PHB basically assumed they were in play, like Kits (the Thief-Acrobat basically said: "if you're not using proficiencies, your Thief-Acrobat gets proficiencies")*, and most campaign settings added a few.

I could only assume the rulebook writers loved them and the module writers either didn't, or couldn't assume their use.

*Heck, the Bard in the PHB gets bonus proficiencies and there's no sign of a replacement if the "optional" rules aren't in use!

 

[James Gasik]

Sounds like the Knights of the Dinner Table universe.

I am imagining a court of appeals for all DM decisions now!

Just IMAGINE the quality of rules lawyering we would get.....

 

[James Gasik]

To cover this admittedly rare situation, I invented a new spell "Renouncement" (7th Cleric) that, when cast on a willing target, completely and harmlessly removes a class - along with any and all associated benefits, penalties, etc. - from someone who doesn't want it any more. If single-class, the target becomes a 0th-level commoner; if double-class*, the character becomes single-class in the one that isn't Renounced. It fails outright if cast on an unwilling, compelled, or charmed target.

This came about due to a PC in an old campaign of mine who, after a non-forced change of heart and ethos, wanted to completely give up Thieving and become a Cleric; yet the game mechanics held no means for him to completely drop the old class before starting over.

* - I don't allow triple-classing.

Wow, given that you're losing all your accrued xp, why is the spell so high level?

Also, I wonder what happens if you own a hat of difference in these situations.

 

[Bedrockgames]

It is interesting that modules didn't bother with them, but many products post-PHB basically assumed they were in play, like Kits (the Thief-Acrobat basically said: "if you're not using proficiencies, your Thief-Acrobat gets proficiencies")*, and most campaign settings added a few.

I could only assume the rulebook writers loved them and the module writers either didn't, or couldn't assume their use.

*Heck, the Bard in the PHB gets bonus proficiencies and there's no sign of a replacement if the "optional" rules aren't in use!

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

 

[Lanefan]

Wow, given that you're losing all your accrued xp, why is the spell so high level?

Because it's big-time magic that lesser Clerics aren't capable of casting.

Oh, and I should mention that you can't cast it on yourself either.

Also, I wonder what happens if you own a hat of difference in these situations.

What's a hat of difference?

 

[James Gasik]

Because it's big-time magic that lesser Clerics aren't capable of casting.

Oh, and I should mention that you can't cast it on yourself either.

What's a hat of difference?

Oh it's a magic item in Unearthed Arcana, when you put it on, it allows you to assume a new character class, starting at level 1, and you lose your other class abilities while wearing it. A friend of mine has this wacky multiclass character who owns one of those. Anytime he introduces a new character, we have to ask him if it's his old character in disguise, because he loves doing that, just assuming a new persona and pretending to be a character of a different class.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Oh it's a magic item in Unearthed Arcana, when you put it on, it allows you to assume a new character class, starting at level 1, and you lose your other class abilities while wearing it. A friend of mine has this wacky multiclass character who owns one of those. Anytime he introduces a new character, we have to ask him if it's his old character in disguise, because he loves doing that, just assuming a new persona and pretending to be a character of a different class.

Unearthed Arcana, man.

It's why I like to differentiate 1e pre- and post-UA. There are a few gems buried in that book, along with a whole avalanche of unplayable and terrible rules that will completely destroy the game's balance if used.

It's almost like it was a cash grab of Dragon articles that was put together in haste, with little thought as to how it would affect play.

As I like to say, there are only two good things about UA-

The polearms, Appendix T. That was cool
The fact that the binding in it was so bad that all copies of it disintegrated within two years.

 

[deganawida]

Unearthed Arcana, man.

It's why I like to differentiate 1e pre- and post-UA. There are a few gems buried in that book, along with a whole avalanche of unplayable and terrible rules that will completely destroy the game's balance if used.

It's almost like it was a cash grab of Dragon articles that was put together in haste, with little thought as to how it would affect play.

As I like to say, there are only two good things about UA-

The polearms, Appendix T. That was cool
The fact that the binding in it was so bad that all copies of it disintegrated within two years.

I dunno, I am a fan of the barbarism and thief-acrobat, even if both are kind of wonky. They have tons of flavor and neat little abilities.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I dunno, I am a fan of the barbarism and thief-acrobat, even if both are kind of wonky. They have tons of flavor and neat little abilities.

The barbarian is a massively overpowered class that is limited by the Ggaxian gatekeeping of being unable to function in a D&D party if you abide by the rules. They can't associate with clerics until level 2, and they can only associate with magic users at level 6 ... WHEN NECESSARY. By the rules, they can never be in a ... you know ... party with a MU (at level 8, they can do so occasionally, but that wouldn't be an actual party).

The thief-acrobat is full of flavor, but it loses thief skills at level 5 (when they are still pretty useless) to gain athletic skills that aren't actually useful ... and that's for high-level play! (Levels 6-23!!!!). So it's a prestige class that is actually weaker than the base class.

Like I said, a lot of great ideas, but you can't actually use most of them as written.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

@deganawida

I would add that if you like Barbarians in 1e, I was always partial to the Asbury version in White Dwarf 4. With just a little bit of tweaking, it is both playable and fits in perfectly with the other classes while keeping the right flavor.