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

[Undrave]

The entire 'X class can't/won't ____{specific weapons, etc.}' always seemed to me to be some of the more gamist rules, in a 'these-are-board-game-pieces' manner. The rook moves in diagonals because that sets up in-game variation, so to with magic users using daggers and the monk not using oil.

Like how 5e says "druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal" utterly failing to fit into the establish rule verbiage of the rest of the edition and not providing any reason whatsoever for this, nor any consequence for going against it. Feels like the book taking away your free will.

Gary played it that the radius would even go through walls, possibly tipping off enemies in other rooms to your presence.

That's kinda cool actually, but also very situational.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

This really isn’t helping my crazy desire to figure out 1e and try it lol

Look, most of the obscure rules are obscure because people didn't follow them.

The great thing about 1e is that most of the rules and subsystems are siloed. No table, and I mean NO TABLE played with all the rules from the PHB and DMG.

Think of it more as a bunch of guidelines that vary from "Pretty much everyone does this" (fighters get d10 hit points per level) to "almost no one does this" (weapons v. AC).

Start small and use what works and is fun for your table.

 

[Undrave]

Start small and use what works and is fun for your table.

And them make stuff up the moment a new situation crops since that seems to be the way Gygax and co did it

Like your players come up to a locked door and one of them wants to break it down and you go

"What's your Break Door score?"

"My what now?"

"Half your strength then add huuuh... 1d4 and that's your Break Door score."

"Okay I got a 9?"

"Good, mark that down for later reference. Roll... 3d8 and try to get huh... ov... no! Under! Yes! Under your Break Door score!"

And then 40 years later people complain about Breaking Door not being a skill anymore.

 

[CapnZapp]

I think this highlights how the entire attribute concept is kinda arbitrary. If this synopsis is accurate, the pre-oD&D attribute list included everything from strength and health to looks and credibility to horsemanship. I don't feel that the average D&D game has enough use for looks to make it worth 1/6 or 1/7 of a total, but overall I don't think there's a strong enough through-line of 'this is what an attribute should be' to specifically exclude looks either.

Of course it's arbitrary, or rather, it isn't arbitrary if there's a point behind the specific selection chosen.

Other games (that keep to ~6 ability scores) work in as diverse concepts as Luck, Perception, Initiative, or Self into the "core" abilities.

I could completely see Gygax & Co basically not knowing what they were doing and ending up with the D&D Six completely by accident though.

And I bet you that if those six attributes were different somehow, the average D&D game would definitely have found plenty of use for them, and then we'd argue "well, I don't feel that the average D&D game has enough use for this new Dexterity thing, or Wisdom thing, to make it worth 1/6 or 1/7 of a total..."

 

[James Gasik]

Oh another "slot machine" character feature I just recalled. On page 60 of the DMG we have the chance for characters to hear noise. It's basically the same chance as a 1st level Thief, adjusted for by race.

So yeah, there's a chance you have exceptional hearing!* I believe the 1e DM screen notes exceptional vision is a possibility as well- one of my DM's always rolled for it, along with a % chance to be ambidextrous.

*Left unsaid is if Thieves can claim this bonus.

 

[CapnZapp]

one of my DM's not only insists on using Comeliness, but he rolls Comeliness for his characters in other games, even when we tell him we're not using it!

OTOH, as near as I can tell, he uses Comeliness entirely as a shorthand for "how attractive this person is". When I applied the bonuses for high Charisma and modifiers for race for my characters, and started saying things like "NPC's of Wisdom less than 12 of the opposite gender are fascinated by me", his eyes crossed (I've never insisted on this point, since I have no way of knowing how Wise an NPC is, I just brought it up in passing).

That thing at the end is weird, and/or (probably and) I don't understand what you're saying.

I would definitely not read more into high Comeliness than just attractiveness. Basically, if I would use it, I would use it as a convenient shorthand for a lengthy description. For PCs it's okay to write down exactly how someone looks, but for a NPC, just rolling 3d6 for Comeliness tells me everything I need to know, at least as long as that character remains peripheral to the story. (In modern times, having the AI generate a portrait is kind of the best of both words) I would say Comeliness basically is Charisma before you get to know the person. First impressions stuff. Sure, having a supernaturally high value could mesmerize someone, but really, that's Charisma's job.

The gender rules from Dragon #3 are best left buried. So many D&D house rules that can't see that women can be just as thirsty as men. The common idea "female heroes have lower Strength but higher Charisma" completely fails to realize that women get just as bedazzled by charismatic males* as men are bedazzled by charismatic females* (with minor differences in execution).
*) and other persons

I feel that much better than to use rules like artificially limiting female characters' Strength (that Dragon article has females roll 1d8+1d6 for Strength instead of 3d6) which in practice just completely shuts the door to Strength builds, is, if you use gender disparity rules at all, restrict the frequency rather than the capacity of really strong female characters.

In a recent Sword & Sorcery campaign inspired by 80s movies like Conan I ran (it didn't use 1E rules, it used DCC rules, but still) I did not make female heroes roll lower Strength scores than males. Instead the players generate characters as usual, but after rolling Strength they roll for gender with the Strength modifier modifying the roll. This way, an 18 Strength female hero is perfectly possible and she is not limited in any way, shape or form... unlikely, but not restricted or held back.

 

[CapnZapp]

That's the main reason I always advocate decoupling attack accuracy from stats for modern D&D. It removes the mechanical pressure to always raise stats at the expense of more interesting, versatile feats.

Not to derail but have you expanded on how somewhere?

 

[TwoSix]

Not to derail but have you expanded on how somewhere?

Only in passing and incoherently.

For my experimental classless game, anyone can use their proficiency modifier in place of their normal stat modifier for weapon attacks, spell attacks, and spell save DC. I also have a small set of feats that require higher stats (15 or 17) to be useful to reward people who do want to increase stats (or earn them via magic items/boons).

 

[Atomoctba]

Of course, I doubt this came into play very much, since even taking into account that it was hard to have a score of 5 or below when the standard die roll was 4d6 and drop the lowest, arrange to taste, anyone who gets a result that low strikes me as just scrapping the character and re-rolling all six stats from scratch. Presumably having two scores of 5 or below (and so not being able to take any classes at all!) meant that you'd just rolled up a 0-level NPC!

My memory can be playing tricks with me, but as long I remember, 4d6 drop lowest become the standard way with 3e. Before it was one suggestion and specifically said that would create "overpowered" characters. In the tables I gamed, we never used that before 3e. Usually it was the variant "3d6 six times and place whatever you want". The standard rule was 3d6 in order to SDCIWCh.

 

[billd91]

My memory can be playing tricks with me, but as long I remember, 4d6 drop lowest become the standard way with 3e. Before it was one suggestion and specifically said that would create "overpowered" characters. In the tables I gamed, we never used that before 3e. Usually it was the variant "3d6 six times and place whatever you want". The standard rule was 3d6 in order to SDCIWCh.

You might think so given the way people wax nostalgic about it. But that's not the case in 1e AD&D. Allow me to provide an excerpt from DMG page 11: