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

[Staffan]

I'm curious if anyone knows the rationale here- as I understand it, a normal human starts being slowed down when they carry more than 20% of their own bodyweight, and here I have a character who can carry around over 150% of their own bodyweight and not care, and then suddenly another 40 pounds and they're staggering around at half sleep, lol.

I think it's because in 1e, encumbrance was first based on fixed weights – something like 35, 70, and 105 lbs (well, 350, 700, and 1050 coins). Strength would then give an increase to all of these, but the steps remained the same size. This then got translated over to 2e encumbrance categories.

 

[Riley]

They did not have any thief skills until 3rd level either, just elven outdoor sneaking which they used a lot.

Nobody blinked an eye.

Plausible.

It was easy to impersonate a 1st-to-3rd level AD&D thief:
They couldn't open locks, find traps, or pick pockets, either.

(Climb walls was their only semi-reliable skill. If you were an elf. With 18 or 19 DEX. And wearing no armor, after UA was published.)

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

…kinda weird that they can't speak Thieves' Cant to start

It was so the Thieves could talk around them without getting targeted for revenge/assassination.

Thief: Sir, this is the assassin we’ve chosen to eliminate the Baron. He has a great many kills to his name. He will make the death look like it happened during a raid from the neighboring barony.

Guild Master: He doesn’t look the part, which is, I suppose, part of his skill.

Assassin: Yes. I’ve spent many years perfecting my craft.

Thief (in Cant): And you’re sure you want to pay him with the poisoned gold? He could be a long-term asset to our Brotherhood.

Guild Master (in Cant): Of course I’m certain. We can’t have a loose end on a job like this.

Assassin: LOL, whut?

 

[Alzrius]

Another obscure rule: as far as I'm aware, there's no explicit statement in AD&D 1E that the monsters can deviate from their alignments as listed in the Monster Manual.

While the AD&D 2E DMG seems to (if I recall correctly) explicitly echo this sentiment, PHBR10 The Complete Book of Humanoids walks it back, stating that individual creatures can have any alignment.

EDIT: I'm pretty sure the 2E Monstrous Manual also, in its introductory section's notation of what a monster's "Alignment" entry meant, explicitly stated that individual creatures could have alignments different from what's listed.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Another obscure rule: as far as I'm aware, there's no explicit statement in AD&D 1E that the monsters can deviate from their alignments as listed in the Monster Manual.

While the AD&D 2E DMG seems to (if I recall correctly) explicitly echo this sentiment, PHBR10 The Complete Book of Humanoids walks it back, stating that individual creatures can have any alignment.

I agree that there is no explicit statement.

However-
ALIGNMENT shows the characteristic bent of a monster to law or chaos, good or evil or towards neutral behavior possibly modified by good or evil intent. It is important with regard to the general behavior of the monster when encountered.

I would say that this provides reasonable allowance for deviation.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I agree that there is no explicit statement.

However-
ALIGNMENT shows the characteristic bent of a monster to law or chaos, good or evil or towards neutral behavior possibly modified by good or evil intent. It is important with regard to the general behavior of the monster when encountered.

I would say that this provides reasonable allowance for deviation.

No joke—-just as that about five minutes ago…

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

No joke—-just as that about five minutes ago…

Unfortunately, I just remembered this from the DMG-

The overall behavior of the character (or creature) is delineated by alignment, or, in the case of player characters, behavior determines actual alignment. Therefore, besides defining the general tendencies of creatures, it also groups creatures into mutually acceptable or at least non-hostile divisions. This is not to say that groups of similarly aligned creatures cannot be opposed or even mortal enemies. Two nations, for example, with rulers of lawful good alignment can be at war. Bands of orcs can hate each other. But the former would possibly cease their war to oppose a massive invasion of orcs, just as the latter would make common cause against the lawful good men. Thus, alignment describes the world view of creatures and helps to define what their actions, reactions, and purposes will be.



GYGAX!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Unfortunately, I just remembered this from the DMG-

The overall behavior of the character (or creature) is delineated by alignment, or, in the case of player characters, behavior determines actual alignment. Therefore, besides defining the general tendencies of creatures, it also groups creatures into mutually acceptable or at least non-hostile divisions. This is not to say that groups of similarly aligned creatures cannot be opposed or even mortal enemies. Two nations, for example, with rulers of lawful good alignment can be at war. Bands of orcs can hate each other. But the former would possibly cease their war to oppose a massive invasion of orcs, just as the latter would make common cause against the lawful good men. Thus, alignment describes the world view of creatures and helps to define what their actions, reactions, and purposes will be.



GYGAX!!!!!!!!!!!

When folks were
Discusssing it I hopped on a pdf viewer. Read “characteristic bent”…I cannot imagine Gygax would forgo a good story due to
That kind of rigidity. In fact surprising the heck out of players was just his thing…

A lot of middle ground though. Many aligned creature with (good) and (evil) in parentheses…so much that a lot of my lawful neutral charters still get a (good) or (evil) in parentheses even into 5e.

 

[Maxperson]

(Bonus question- if you are in a tunnel, and casting fireball to hit people that are some distance outside the tunnel, how do you calculate the range when you have a mixed inside/outside scenario?)

I don't know how the book says to do it, but I would rule that it moves at 10 feet per inch inside the cave and when it exits, the remaining inches are now going 10 yards per inch.

 

[Maxperson]

Unfortunately, I just remembered this from the DMG-

The overall behavior of the character (or creature) is delineated by alignment, or, in the case of player characters, behavior determines actual alignment. Therefore, besides defining the general tendencies of creatures, it also groups creatures into mutually acceptable or at least non-hostile divisions. This is not to say that groups of similarly aligned creatures cannot be opposed or even mortal enemies. Two nations, for example, with rulers of lawful good alignment can be at war. Bands of orcs can hate each other. But the former would possibly cease their war to oppose a massive invasion of orcs, just as the latter would make common cause against the lawful good men. Thus, alignment describes the world view of creatures and helps to define what their actions, reactions, and purposes will be.



GYGAX!!!!!!!!!!!

Of course that same section has a sub-section that goes over alignment change rules, so a creature could switch that way I suppose.

Player: "That was the easiest ogre we've fought!"

DM: "Well, you guys just murdered a lawful good ogre. He wasn't issuing war cries and challenges, he was begging you guys to stop so he could explain. Shame none of you rolled ogre on that massive chart of languages!! As for being easy, he just lost a hit die due to switching to lawful good."

A monster could also have fallen prey to one of the alignment switching items.