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

[Mannahnin]

We took percentile increments and applied them to all classes, and it works great. Your primary stat has to advance, and you pick one or two others (once, after which that choice is forever locked in) to also advance. If you pick two others and thus have three advancing, they all advance slower.

The only major knock-on effect was that in order to make this work consistently we had to rework exceptional Strength for Fighters and make each "step" into its own integer; meaning 18.00 becomes 24 and the old 19 becomes 25.

What I like about how the percentile-increment system works is:
--- it's slow; much slower than the WotC-era level-based ASIs - over 10 levels a character will likely see its primary stat go up by 1 (maybe 2 if you're lucky!) and may or may not see a secondary stat increase at all
--- it's random; your starting point is a randomly-rolled percent value and you advance each level from there, with the amount of advancement at each level also determined by dice roll.
--- the timing of stat advancement is unpredictable; you might bump a stat at 2nd level, or you might not bump one until 8th
--- it reflects the physical-mental development one would expect as one gets better at doing whatever one does, while also recognizing that development isn't necessarily going to happen at the same rate or timing for everyone.

I like the system from The Nightmares Underneath better. It's simpler and more playable and retains the randomness you like.

 

[Lanefan]

So, in no particular order, here are my issues with the Cavalier. Some are minor, some are major.

1-introduce sub-levels that only exist for this class alone.

Another idea that can (and IMO should have) be expanded to all classes. -2 is overkill, but if a basic commoner is considered -1 then a trainee in any class* can be considered as 0th.

* - if you recall, there's an adjustment applied to your starting age based on what class you're in; I long ago interpreted that to mean that's how long it takes to basic-train for that class, during most of which time you'd be 0th-level.

1b- of course, the sub-levels only exist if you're of low social standing.

Easy to ditch, and make the same thing apply to all.

1c- Cavalier starting hit points. Ok, so this is kind of messed up. If you start at level -2 (0-level horseman) you have a d4+1 hit points (plus Con bonus). After earning 1000 xp, you earn another d4 Hit Die (but no Con bonus). As near as I can tell, you don't get more hit points for reaching level 1 (another 500 xp).

But wait! If you are one of the chosen 20% you start off with a d10+3+Con...for a class that presumably has 12-sided Hit Dice?! Yes, I know, Dragon Magazine later said this was an error and the class has a d10 Hit Die, but I didn't have that issue when I was playing 1e, lol. Still, the fact that it was an error means I don't need a 1d where I gripe about why this class has a d12 Hit Die, lol.

We changed them to a straight d10 hit die before ever realizing it was supposed to have been that all along. The sub-level hit-point steps never made any sense, so weren't used.

2- race restrictions are always a weird thing.

With a few exceptions, I agree. The only species in my game that can't be Cavaliers are [Half]-Orcs.

3- On that topic, Chaotic Cavaliers always struck me as weird. I should point out you can be an evil Cavalier, but I don't suggest it. It's just bad.

And yet the "Black Knight" is a trope as old as time. They can't be CN or CE in my game, and NE or CG is a bit of a stretch, but anything else is fine.

4- Cavaliers are better than Fighters. The rationale here is that they train harder than lowly Fighters, I guess. This comes in a few ways. Adding your level to lance damage is in theory kind of busted, but I can let that slide- how often can you be on horse back, how likely you are to become a high level Cavalier, etc.. Cavaliers are better at the parrying subsystem. Sure, I guess. Cavaliers are +1 on the ol' combat matrix on horseback. Again, not a big deal. Cavaliers naturally get better ability scores as they rise in levels- hold up. What? So in a game where ability score bonuses are only allowed via magic (or in the cast of mental stats, getting old), here we have another "slot machine" mechanic that will let the Cavalier naturally go from 15 to 18 (00) in Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution!? Even breaking the good ol' race and gender limits!

See my previous post in response to Snarf re %-ile increments.

That they're better than Fighters (and anyone else!) in mounted combat is fine: mounted combat is uncommon, and comes with its own hazards.

Oh and hey, we're also immune to fear and have an aura that protects allies from fear, and of course Cavaliers have 90% immunity to many mind-affecting effects (but not high Comeliness, lol) and a +2 on saves vs. Illusions (because Illusionists need them nerfs, lol)! Cavaliers also don't die the same way as other mere mortals, being able to survive when reaching a negative hit point total equal to their 1st-level hit point total! They also get an extra d4 hit points back per week of natural healing. How? Why? Don't worry about it! Well at least they can't specialize in weapons, so there's that.

Other than the 'fearless' piece, we nuked all that. I did say Cavaliers needed toning down, didn't I?

But yes, 'fearless' is their biggest benefit.

If you've been following the endless debate about "nonsensical" Background Features in the "Do you plan on switching to 2024 edition?" thread (or whatever it's really called), then we have this fun tidbit:
View attachment 365177
Well at least it mentions political divisions so you can't hit up Strahd von Zarovich for free room and board in Castle Ravenloft, lol.

Another thing we largely scrapped.

4b- but hey, it's not all roses. We have a serious downside as well- for those first few levels, to level up we have to find a Cavalier 2 levels higher than we are, until level 6, when our normal training regiment is good enough to advance in levels, unlike those other character classes who need to pony up training costs and maybe even duel higher level rivals!

I have them train to level just like anyone else; but they do have to find someone 2 levels higher (all other classes just need someone 1 level higher) than the level being trained into.

4c- Cavaliers are super good at mounted combat. This isn't really an issue, I mean, this is their schtick. The only eyebrow raise here is 4th level elven maidens being able to ride unicorns. As expected of a mounted class, your warhorse is just better than everyone else's- not only can you look at a horse and know that it has higher than average hit points or not, just for riding it, your mount gets 2 more hit points per Hit Die...but not over the maximum hit point total. Ok sure. And yeah, at levels 7 and up, we have the option to ride increasingly fantastical and flying mounts, but I'm not sure you're going to hit that level anyways.

I can't remember the last time I DMed a Unicorn.

It's a standing joke here that a Cavalier's warhorse is usually as or more Intelligent than its rider.

5- Cavaliers have strange thought processes. Gotta have full plate armor. What, you got Field Plate +3? Nope, gotta chuck it, Full Plate +0 is obviously superior! But wait, it doesn't stop there!
View attachment 365179
Yes, that's right. In combat, you don't get to run your character, you have a pre-programmed script you need to follow. Doing this ensures that you always rush the strongest foe on the battlefield before being allowed to take on "lesser foes".

And this is what makes them fun to play - they come with built-in gonzo at no extra charge!

And then there's your Code of Conduct. Now, the one given is a sample. The DM can make their own. But when I saw Cavaliers played, the DM's apparently went with the example. If you violate your code, you can earn less, or even no experience points for doing so. And the sample code basically says you would rather die before dishonoring yourself, and of course, running away from a fight is dishonorable!

I kept the codes of conduct for Paladins but toned them down greatly for Cavaliers. The main remnant is that a Cavalier will always seek to defend members of the opposite gender.

But with the Cavalier, it matters not. You see a great wyrm red dragon? You're first level? Charge! No retreat, no surrender!

Ayup. What was I saying about built-in gonzo?

 

[Lanefan]

I like the system from The Nightmares Underneath better. It's simpler and more playable and retains the randomness you like.

Makes it too easy to get out from under a very low score IMO. Otherwise not bad.

 

[Mannahnin]

Makes it too easy to get out from under a very low score IMO. Otherwise not bad.

I don't think so. It's important, since TNU uses roll-under stat as one of its core mechanics. Remember that you only get the guaranteed advances if it's one of your primary scores (Prime Requisite equivalents) AND that score is a 12 or lower. The advances are also important because TNU uses 3d6 in order for ability score generation. It also uses the Basic/Expert ability score bonus scaling (expanded to include 1, 2, 19 and 20), so the raw bonuses and penalties are less than in AD&D or WotC-era D&D.

There's also basically no bookkeeping needed. No tracking percentages or fractional points, or recording your fixed two or three stats you're ever allowed to improve like in your system.

 

[CapnZapp]

Despite what everyone thinks, the Comeliness ability score did not die out within a few years of its publication (first in Dragon, and then in Unearthed Arcana). No, it survived into AD&D 2E...because of the RPGA!

While RPGA characters that appeared in Polyhedron had Comeliness scores for quite some time, we'd see the rules for the Comeliness score reprinted in Polyhedron #89 (November, 1993) in an addendum to the adventure "The Ugly Stick." However, this wasn't the Comeliness of 1E's UA, as all it did was provide a reaction adjustment (with the table of what score merited what adjustment being a direct copy of how much Charisma adjusted reaction scores).

I would say that if your game only has a couple of numbers that define the entirety of your physical, mental and spiritual state, a score to define how beautiful or attractive you are simply doesn't cut it.

But the core idea, that surface attractiveness is not the same thing as charisma and force of personality, is still valid. My go to example to explain the difference is Hollywood actors. Some daytime soap opera actors are genuinely and unquestionably attractive people, but they can't hold a candle personality-wise to great actors whose high Charisma is not in doubt but that aren't considered "conventionally attractive".

Bringing up male examples is much easier, so Al Pacino or Harvey Keitel would have sky high Charisma scores but not necessarily very high Comeliness scores. Somebody like Glen Powell or Colin Farell would.

In real life, the very first impression you make is super important. But if you want to model the unfairness inherent in beauty standards, you could use Comeliness to represent that surface-deep first impression (including things like clothing and the way you present yourself). If you actually start talking to the person, Comeliness would quickly (very quickly) fade into irrelevance as Charisma takes over.

Skipping this is entirely reasonable, just like you might skip bathroom breaks. For many types of campaigns, there is zero reason to include Comeliness. But for some types of campaigns, it definitely can play a role. I'm not necessarily thinking about a game set in Hollywood, but for a classic Sword & Sorcery campaign, or other campaign involving body horror, I could definitely see myself using it or something like it.

 

[CapnZapp]

if your player wants to take up farming

and is above level 1, just say "you succeed" and then move onto the next adventure

 

[CapnZapp]

Not favorites exactly, but odd rules that stuck with me from the original D&D boxed set:

• Player characters can't see in the dark, but monsters always can. However, if a monster switches sides and joins the player characters, they can't see in the dark anymore.

The 5E writers could learn from this.

Having your heroes actually fear the darkness is a great thing, and there is no good reason to just do away with this, as 5E has done (for all practical purposes).

 

[CapnZapp]

I love how this assumes every character out there is right-handed and thus has its shield on the left arm....

Not an unreasonable simplification?

 

[the Jester]

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.

Remember Anything Items?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Remember Anything Items?

Oh, I do. That was ... I mean, when you're running out of ideas, I guess it makes sense?

But seriously, Anything Armor is the definition of ... don't think about how it would work ... not too much .... not at all.