TSR [Let's Read] Dungeons & Dragons Basic Rules, by Tom Moldvay
Dwarves and gnomes are dark-skinned, or at least non-white, in the AD&D Monster Manual also.
12th level for dwarves. (10th for elves, 8th for halflings.)
Iosue
Legend
Yup, was looking for the elf racial limit while attempting to type the dwarf racial limit.
Iosue
Legend
Character Classes Part 2
Interestingly, both fighters and magic-users get the shortest entries in this section.
Fighters - Renamed from "Fighting-men", it's otherwise pretty staid here. Hercules is name-checked. Train for battle, prime req of Strength, Str over 13 gives +10% to XP, d8 HD, use any weapon, wear any armor, use shields, no special abilities. I'm not leaving much out!
Halflings - Halflings are demi-humans on easy mode. Their prime reqs are Strength and Dexterity, but you only need a 13 or better in one for the 5% XP bonus, and a 13+ in both gives you 10%. They get d6 Hit Dice, putting them on par with elves and clerics. They can use any weapon or armor that has is halfling-sized (no two-handed swords or longbows). They advance to a maximum of 8th level. They have very good saves, and get a +1 halfling bonus in addition to Dex bonuses for missile fire and individual initiative. They also get a -2 to AC versus opponents larger than man-sized. They can hide in shadows on a 1 or 2 on d6 in a dungeon, but on a 1-9 on d10 when outside. Pump Dex up, and these halflings are hard, bold, and wicked!
Magic-users - Again, pretty staid. Merlin is name-checked. Cast spells, prime req is Intelligence, d4 HD, can only use daggers, no armor. One line is very pointed: "Though they are weak at first, magic-users can eventually become very powerful." This is what I call the different balance of old editions. The magic-user is deliberately made weaker at first, and their dominance later in the game makes up for this initial weakness.
Thieves - Humans trained in the "arts of stealing and sneaking". Moldvay makes it a point to note that the presence of thieves is not out of the normal for adventurers, due to these skills. But then comes the stinger - "As their name indicates, however, they do steal -- sometimes from members of their own party." Prime req is Dexterity, Hit Dice are d4, no shield, only leather armor, but any kind of weapon. In addition to their thief abilities, they get their backstab ability, although this is not called "backstab". It merely says "When striking unnoticed from behind, a thief gains a bonus of +4 on "to hit" rolls and inflicts twice the normal amount of damage." Here is one point where I wish Moldvay had provided more elaboration. He emphasizes "unnoticed", but there isn't even any DM advice, let alone mechanics or rules for how thieves achieve these conditions. As a result, it's entirely up to the graces of the DM if the thief is to take advantage of this ability. It's great if you've got a "say yes" kind of DM, but if not, I can see the frustration.
So, the classes. Certainly, from a customizing, "create your imagined character" perspective, it's quite limiting. On the other hand, I can see why Basic D&D took off like it did. The classes not only have niche roles in a party and represent easily relatable archetypes, their various advantages and disadvantages, even on the meta-game level, IMO offer the beginning player just the right level of choice and structure.
Someone once asked, "Why play a fighter in the older editions?" and from the class description there's not much that might persuade them. Left unsaid in the Moldvay class description (although expanded on in Mentzer) is that fighters are instant gratification. They have lots of hp, and pretty fast advancement, quickly giving them more hp and better to-hit rolls. Dwarves are much the same, just trading some upper levels for immediate special abilities. Magic-users, OTOH, play the long game. If you persevere at the early levels, the rewards are great. Elves, in addition to calling to mind Tolkien and providing an alternative to human characters, give you the chance to wield some magic and a sword, on the condition of slow advancement. Similarly, halflings definitely call to mind Tolkien, while presenting a class seemingly built to harry opponents at range. Thieves are for the player who isn't particularly interested in combat, but finds lots of spotlight time out of it, with rapid advancement. And clerics have decent fighting ability, a unique set of highly useful special abilities, and fairly fast advancement. I actually wonder that they were not a popular class (prior to CoDzilla); I would almost say they were designed to encourage at least one person to play one.
Reflecting on our early games when we first played, I recall that all of us had a favorite class we tended to play. I liked magic-users, my sister preferred elves, and my buddy was a thief man through and through. I think that's a residue of the design.
This page comes with this picture, showing all the classes, except for the thief.
Interestingly, both fighters and magic-users get the shortest entries in this section.
Fighters - Renamed from "Fighting-men", it's otherwise pretty staid here. Hercules is name-checked. Train for battle, prime req of Strength, Str over 13 gives +10% to XP, d8 HD, use any weapon, wear any armor, use shields, no special abilities. I'm not leaving much out!
Halflings - Halflings are demi-humans on easy mode. Their prime reqs are Strength and Dexterity, but you only need a 13 or better in one for the 5% XP bonus, and a 13+ in both gives you 10%. They get d6 Hit Dice, putting them on par with elves and clerics. They can use any weapon or armor that has is halfling-sized (no two-handed swords or longbows). They advance to a maximum of 8th level. They have very good saves, and get a +1 halfling bonus in addition to Dex bonuses for missile fire and individual initiative. They also get a -2 to AC versus opponents larger than man-sized. They can hide in shadows on a 1 or 2 on d6 in a dungeon, but on a 1-9 on d10 when outside. Pump Dex up, and these halflings are hard, bold, and wicked!
Magic-users - Again, pretty staid. Merlin is name-checked. Cast spells, prime req is Intelligence, d4 HD, can only use daggers, no armor. One line is very pointed: "Though they are weak at first, magic-users can eventually become very powerful." This is what I call the different balance of old editions. The magic-user is deliberately made weaker at first, and their dominance later in the game makes up for this initial weakness.
Thieves - Humans trained in the "arts of stealing and sneaking". Moldvay makes it a point to note that the presence of thieves is not out of the normal for adventurers, due to these skills. But then comes the stinger - "As their name indicates, however, they do steal -- sometimes from members of their own party." Prime req is Dexterity, Hit Dice are d4, no shield, only leather armor, but any kind of weapon. In addition to their thief abilities, they get their backstab ability, although this is not called "backstab". It merely says "When striking unnoticed from behind, a thief gains a bonus of +4 on "to hit" rolls and inflicts twice the normal amount of damage." Here is one point where I wish Moldvay had provided more elaboration. He emphasizes "unnoticed", but there isn't even any DM advice, let alone mechanics or rules for how thieves achieve these conditions. As a result, it's entirely up to the graces of the DM if the thief is to take advantage of this ability. It's great if you've got a "say yes" kind of DM, but if not, I can see the frustration.
So, the classes. Certainly, from a customizing, "create your imagined character" perspective, it's quite limiting. On the other hand, I can see why Basic D&D took off like it did. The classes not only have niche roles in a party and represent easily relatable archetypes, their various advantages and disadvantages, even on the meta-game level, IMO offer the beginning player just the right level of choice and structure.
Someone once asked, "Why play a fighter in the older editions?" and from the class description there's not much that might persuade them. Left unsaid in the Moldvay class description (although expanded on in Mentzer) is that fighters are instant gratification. They have lots of hp, and pretty fast advancement, quickly giving them more hp and better to-hit rolls. Dwarves are much the same, just trading some upper levels for immediate special abilities. Magic-users, OTOH, play the long game. If you persevere at the early levels, the rewards are great. Elves, in addition to calling to mind Tolkien and providing an alternative to human characters, give you the chance to wield some magic and a sword, on the condition of slow advancement. Similarly, halflings definitely call to mind Tolkien, while presenting a class seemingly built to harry opponents at range. Thieves are for the player who isn't particularly interested in combat, but finds lots of spotlight time out of it, with rapid advancement. And clerics have decent fighting ability, a unique set of highly useful special abilities, and fairly fast advancement. I actually wonder that they were not a popular class (prior to CoDzilla); I would almost say they were designed to encourage at least one person to play one.
Reflecting on our early games when we first played, I recall that all of us had a favorite class we tended to play. I liked magic-users, my sister preferred elves, and my buddy was a thief man through and through. I think that's a residue of the design.
This page comes with this picture, showing all the classes, except for the thief.
rogueattorney
Adventurer
By my count, the OP is through page B9 of the rules. I'll try to keep up a bit but not pass him.
Do we really need a mapper? I tend to stress the dungeon exploration theme and strongly encourage the party to map. I don't do it for them. If they get lost in the dungeon and can't find their way out... Oh well. That said, I try to make it easy on the mapper and make sure he doesn't get hung up on the little details. I generally tell my players that a flowchart will probably work just as well as anything else.
Do we really need a caller? This one of those things I think modern players completely misunderstand, especially since the 4 person party became standard. "Nobody tells me what my pc does." Etc. As this section makes clear, that's entirely not the point. The caller just takes what everyone wants to do with their character and passes it along to the DM. It's not particularly useful for smaller groups, but once you've got 6 or more players, it can cut down on the chaos.
Creating a character: There should be an additional step: "Pick extra languages, if applicable."
Ability scores: Low and average ability scores are not as crippling to a character in this version of D&D as they are in other versions. A character with nothing but average (9-11) scores will be a perfectly good character. A character with a couple below average ability scores might be serviceable depending on which scores are low and whether he has some high scores. Generally speaking, your ability scores will not be the most important rolls made at character creation; in my experience, one’s starting hit point roll and starting gold roll have more impact on the character’s short-term survivability and long-term viability.
Hit points: Note the optional rule to re-roll 1's and 2's. It doesn't say how many times you get to re-roll it. So, I suppose that could be interpreted to say that when using the optional rule first level characters have a minimum starting hp of 3.
Classes: I think the key to the classes is to think of each of the classes as broad archetypes rather than a specific profession. No one actually calls himself a “fighter.” Rather, a bounty hunter, soldier, highwayman, pirate, or guard. No one actually calls herself a “magic-user.” Rather, a seer, enchantress, mystic, or scholar. Clerics are teachers, preachers, bureaucrats, tax-collectors, and scientists. All demi-humans don't conform to the respective classes, but rather the class represents a typical adventuring member of the race. Don't get hung up on the accretions that decades of further game products have laced these terms with.
Level-titles: Level titles are really only there for fun. I neither encourage to nor discourage players from using titles. As a player, I'll often write them on my character sheets, but then never do anything with them. As a DM, I have NPCs use the level titles from time to time, but they also often exaggerate or downplay their abilities by using a level title that doesn’t match their actual level.
Weapon and armor restrictions: This is how I handle weapons and armor restrictions... Clerics do not use edged weapons. Magic-users do not use any other weapon besides a dagger and do not wear armor. Thieves do not wear metal armor. It’s not that these characters cannot use the relevant weapon and armor; it’s that they, as a general rule, don’t. Failure to abide by the weapon and armor restrictions is a failure to play the role of the class.
In extenuating circumstances, a character can violate the restrictions. A magic-user or thief could don plate mail as part of a disguise while infiltrating a castle. (But will be unable to perform most class specific functions.) A cleric or magic-user could pick up a sword in self-defense if he had no other recourse. (But would attack with a substantial penalty.)
However, if a character makes common practice of violating the class restrictions, he will not gain any experience points for those adventures where he does so. You receive experience points for acting as your class. If a magic-user dons plate mail and charges into battle wielding a sword, he’s not acting as his class, and thus gains no experience as a magic-user.
Do we really need a mapper? I tend to stress the dungeon exploration theme and strongly encourage the party to map. I don't do it for them. If they get lost in the dungeon and can't find their way out... Oh well. That said, I try to make it easy on the mapper and make sure he doesn't get hung up on the little details. I generally tell my players that a flowchart will probably work just as well as anything else.
Do we really need a caller? This one of those things I think modern players completely misunderstand, especially since the 4 person party became standard. "Nobody tells me what my pc does." Etc. As this section makes clear, that's entirely not the point. The caller just takes what everyone wants to do with their character and passes it along to the DM. It's not particularly useful for smaller groups, but once you've got 6 or more players, it can cut down on the chaos.
Creating a character: There should be an additional step: "Pick extra languages, if applicable."
Ability scores: Low and average ability scores are not as crippling to a character in this version of D&D as they are in other versions. A character with nothing but average (9-11) scores will be a perfectly good character. A character with a couple below average ability scores might be serviceable depending on which scores are low and whether he has some high scores. Generally speaking, your ability scores will not be the most important rolls made at character creation; in my experience, one’s starting hit point roll and starting gold roll have more impact on the character’s short-term survivability and long-term viability.
Hit points: Note the optional rule to re-roll 1's and 2's. It doesn't say how many times you get to re-roll it. So, I suppose that could be interpreted to say that when using the optional rule first level characters have a minimum starting hp of 3.
Classes: I think the key to the classes is to think of each of the classes as broad archetypes rather than a specific profession. No one actually calls himself a “fighter.” Rather, a bounty hunter, soldier, highwayman, pirate, or guard. No one actually calls herself a “magic-user.” Rather, a seer, enchantress, mystic, or scholar. Clerics are teachers, preachers, bureaucrats, tax-collectors, and scientists. All demi-humans don't conform to the respective classes, but rather the class represents a typical adventuring member of the race. Don't get hung up on the accretions that decades of further game products have laced these terms with.
Level-titles: Level titles are really only there for fun. I neither encourage to nor discourage players from using titles. As a player, I'll often write them on my character sheets, but then never do anything with them. As a DM, I have NPCs use the level titles from time to time, but they also often exaggerate or downplay their abilities by using a level title that doesn’t match their actual level.
Weapon and armor restrictions: This is how I handle weapons and armor restrictions... Clerics do not use edged weapons. Magic-users do not use any other weapon besides a dagger and do not wear armor. Thieves do not wear metal armor. It’s not that these characters cannot use the relevant weapon and armor; it’s that they, as a general rule, don’t. Failure to abide by the weapon and armor restrictions is a failure to play the role of the class.
In extenuating circumstances, a character can violate the restrictions. A magic-user or thief could don plate mail as part of a disguise while infiltrating a castle. (But will be unable to perform most class specific functions.) A cleric or magic-user could pick up a sword in self-defense if he had no other recourse. (But would attack with a substantial penalty.)
However, if a character makes common practice of violating the class restrictions, he will not gain any experience points for those adventures where he does so. You receive experience points for acting as your class. If a magic-user dons plate mail and charges into battle wielding a sword, he’s not acting as his class, and thus gains no experience as a magic-user.
rogueattorney
Adventurer
Iosue posted again, while I was writing... I'll catch up.
Halflings: There's a couple missing items with halflings. Halflings' xp bonus is kind of unclear. To be a halfling, you must have a Dex of 9. The prime requisites are strength and dexterity. If you have one or the other above 13, you get a 5% xp bonus. If you have both above 13, you get a 10% xp bonus. What if your Str is below 9 (usually a penalty to xp when your prime requisite is below 9) and your Dex is above 13? My reading is that you'd still get the 5% bonus for xp for having the high Dex.
Also, later in the book (pg. B13), "Halfling" is listed as one of the additional languages a character could learn. However, it isn't noted in the halfling's description that they can speak the language. I think that's just an omission and let pc halflings speak their native tongue.
A word about magic-users: Magic-users can be the toughest class to play at low levels. They are probably the weakest class to begin with, and have a high mortality rate. In my view, humans really aren’t cut out to cast magic well, unlike, say, elves and dragons. I wouldn’t recommend the class for beginners.
On the plus side, once a magic-user gets to fourth or fifth level, he gradually becomes the most powerful member of the party. Once magic-users get over the “hump” and discover their potential, their power becomes virtually unlimited. Thus, high-level magic-users are the most powerful beings you are going to face in the campaign world. However, it’s a real tough road to hoe to get that far, and there’s a reason why there are so few powerful human practitioners of magic in my campaign worlds. In that respect, the magic-user can also be the most rewarding class to play.
Thief skills: I think of the thief skill percentages as base scores in non-optimum conditions. (Moving silently when there isn’t any other noise to cover the movement, for example). I'll give bonuses in optimum conditions.
A thief who has an unlimited amount of time to open a non-magical lock can eventually get it open. Taking a locked treasure chest out of the dungeon to a well-lit room without the risk of wandering monsters will usually result in an unlocked chest.
I interpret the later rule on B22 to mean that all characters can find large structural traps such as pit traps on a 1 in 6 (or a 1 or 2 in 6 for dwarves), and thieves use that chance of finding the larger type traps until third level, when their find traps chances exceed that of the other characters.
Generally, I think the chance to remove traps just applies to small, non-structural traps such as a poisoned needle in a lock. A pit trap built into the dungeon floor, for example, cannot be removed. I might, however, require a remove traps roll to neutralize a larger trap if the method the thief is using to neutralize the trap is difficult. (Placing a plank across a pit trap and walking over would succeed automatically – throwing a rope over a beam and swinging across the pit will probably require a roll.) I don't usually have a failure to remove a trap trigger it. I think that's doing a disservice to the thief.
Likewise, I think failure to move silently or hide in shadows does not mean that the thief is automatically noticed. It just means that he does not have an increased chance of not being noticed.
In my campaigns, to employ his backstab, the thief will have to be “unnoticed” and approaching the victim from behind. Generally speaking, this means his opponent will have to have been surprised. Successful Move Silently and Hide in Shadows rolls increase the chance to surprise. The opponent will also have to have a discernible back in order to be backstabbed. (Green slimes, for example, have no back and therefore cannot be backstabbed.) Thieves should certainly hang back from melee and attempt to move into position to backstab opponents, falling back on missile weapons when that isn’t possible.
Halflings: There's a couple missing items with halflings. Halflings' xp bonus is kind of unclear. To be a halfling, you must have a Dex of 9. The prime requisites are strength and dexterity. If you have one or the other above 13, you get a 5% xp bonus. If you have both above 13, you get a 10% xp bonus. What if your Str is below 9 (usually a penalty to xp when your prime requisite is below 9) and your Dex is above 13? My reading is that you'd still get the 5% bonus for xp for having the high Dex.
Also, later in the book (pg. B13), "Halfling" is listed as one of the additional languages a character could learn. However, it isn't noted in the halfling's description that they can speak the language. I think that's just an omission and let pc halflings speak their native tongue.
A word about magic-users: Magic-users can be the toughest class to play at low levels. They are probably the weakest class to begin with, and have a high mortality rate. In my view, humans really aren’t cut out to cast magic well, unlike, say, elves and dragons. I wouldn’t recommend the class for beginners.
On the plus side, once a magic-user gets to fourth or fifth level, he gradually becomes the most powerful member of the party. Once magic-users get over the “hump” and discover their potential, their power becomes virtually unlimited. Thus, high-level magic-users are the most powerful beings you are going to face in the campaign world. However, it’s a real tough road to hoe to get that far, and there’s a reason why there are so few powerful human practitioners of magic in my campaign worlds. In that respect, the magic-user can also be the most rewarding class to play.
Thief skills: I think of the thief skill percentages as base scores in non-optimum conditions. (Moving silently when there isn’t any other noise to cover the movement, for example). I'll give bonuses in optimum conditions.
A thief who has an unlimited amount of time to open a non-magical lock can eventually get it open. Taking a locked treasure chest out of the dungeon to a well-lit room without the risk of wandering monsters will usually result in an unlocked chest.
I interpret the later rule on B22 to mean that all characters can find large structural traps such as pit traps on a 1 in 6 (or a 1 or 2 in 6 for dwarves), and thieves use that chance of finding the larger type traps until third level, when their find traps chances exceed that of the other characters.
Generally, I think the chance to remove traps just applies to small, non-structural traps such as a poisoned needle in a lock. A pit trap built into the dungeon floor, for example, cannot be removed. I might, however, require a remove traps roll to neutralize a larger trap if the method the thief is using to neutralize the trap is difficult. (Placing a plank across a pit trap and walking over would succeed automatically – throwing a rope over a beam and swinging across the pit will probably require a roll.) I don't usually have a failure to remove a trap trigger it. I think that's doing a disservice to the thief.
Likewise, I think failure to move silently or hide in shadows does not mean that the thief is automatically noticed. It just means that he does not have an increased chance of not being noticed.
In my campaigns, to employ his backstab, the thief will have to be “unnoticed” and approaching the victim from behind. Generally speaking, this means his opponent will have to have been surprised. Successful Move Silently and Hide in Shadows rolls increase the chance to surprise. The opponent will also have to have a discernible back in order to be backstabbed. (Green slimes, for example, have no back and therefore cannot be backstabbed.) Thieves should certainly hang back from melee and attempt to move into position to backstab opponents, falling back on missile weapons when that isn’t possible.
Last edited:
First off, regarding this thread, great job! I'm really enjoying going through all of this.
This is really funny because I have ALWAYS thought that the missing one was the Magic-user...or rather the Elf was kinda doing double duty with her crystal ball, there. And the sneaky looking guy with the hood and dagger, behind the fighter, was the thief. But with the hood and appearing to be in robe...and holding a dagger, I could see where the "that's the MU" comes from...still think it's the thief though. ;P
Actually, waaay back originally, I thought the cleric was the magic-user and the cleric was missing...but at some point conceded the symbol around "the guy with the staff"'s neck was the cleric...which leaves the MU out in the cold.
Interesting how that image (like so many from those early books) can strike up imaginations in various ways/various perspectives.
This is really funny because I have ALWAYS thought that the missing one was the Magic-user...or rather the Elf was kinda doing double duty with her crystal ball, there. And the sneaky looking guy with the hood and dagger, behind the fighter, was the thief. But with the hood and appearing to be in robe...and holding a dagger, I could see where the "that's the MU" comes from...still think it's the thief though. ;P
Actually, waaay back originally, I thought the cleric was the magic-user and the cleric was missing...but at some point conceded the symbol around "the guy with the staff"'s neck was the cleric...which leaves the MU out in the cold.
Interesting how that image (like so many from those early books) can strike up imaginations in various ways/various perspectives.
Iosue
Legend
Alignment
I admit, if there's one thing I find unsatisfactory about Moldvay's Basic, it's alignment. It seems like there were a number of good ideas there, but nothing you can point at to say "This is alignment." Rereading it now doesn't provide me with further insight. First there's the idea of the players being aligned with Great Forces. This is hinted at. The first line of the section is, "Three basic ways of life guide the acts of both player characters and monsters." Ways of life hints at more than just personality, or even moral attitudes. The alignments are given proper noun names - a character isn't just Lawful or Chaotic, their alignment is Law or Chaos. There's also a hint that alignment is a game-world phenomenon: "Most Lawful characters will reveal their alignment if asked." As well as the alignment languages. But then it stops there. To my frustration, alignment languages are not fully explained. Why does a character forget them if he changes alignment? Why do they use the new one immediately?
Then there's the idea that Law and Chaos are just euphemism for Good and Evil. Moldvay writes "Lawful behavior is usually the same as behavior that could be called 'good'," "Chaotic behavior is usually the same as behavior that could be called 'evil'," and "Neutral behavior may be considered 'good' or 'evil' (or neither) depending on the situation. In particular, Chaotic gets singled out: "When picking alignments, the characters should know that Chaotics cannot be trusted, even by other Chaotics. A Chaotic character doesn't work well with other player characters." As if to say, "Chaotic is not really for PCs..." But this good-evil parallel is undercut almost immediately by such words as "usually" and the fact that neutral might be good or evil. So the game also hints that you could have good Chaotic characters and evil Lawful characters (which had been in D&D since the early supplements, as well as Holmes.)
So alignment doesn't say my character is good or evil. So is it describing personality, morals, and attitude? Is it less in-world fluff than just a role-playing aid? A short-hand for communicating to other players what kind of character he or she is? But this is undercut by alignment languages, as well as advice for DMs give players a punishment or penalty for not playing in line with the character's alignment.
With our group, I guess we ended up ignoring alignment languages and just playing alignment as broad personality traits. Our characters were basically good - I tended to go with Neutral because I didn't have to worry about "playing to alignment" so much. My sister made Chaotic elves that were basically just whimsical. The alignment section has this picture, which seems to portray the alignments as Good, Evil, and Hipster.
Holmes writes:
Quickly rounding up character generation:
Equipment - I'm not entirely sure if the Basic equipment list is good because it provides just the right amount of variety without being overwhelming, or if I only think that because it's the standard by which I've judged everything that comes after. Two axes (Battle and Hand), three bows (Cross, Long, and Short), two daggers (Normal and Silver), three swords (Short, normal, and Two-handed), and rounded up by the Mace, Club, Pole Arm, Sling, Spear, and War Hammer. Three kinds of armor, Chain, Leather, and Plate Mail, plus the Shield. Clothing only is AC 9, Leather is AC 7, Chain is AC 5, and Plate Mail is AC 3. Add the shield in between those, and you've got every number from 9 to 2, which is kinda elegant. Variety without analysis paralysis. Unfortunately, it wouldn't be until the Expert Set that equipment got much in the way of explanation. The noble 10' pole is here, but I can't see any reference to what it's used for.
Languages - a table is provided with 20 intelligent monsters from the Basic book. Monsters only have a 20% chance of speaking Common, except for Dragons who will speak both Dragon and Common if they speak at all. I feel this is something that's fallen to the wayside in later editions -- and not without reason. But languages take on a whole new meaning when used in conjunction with Basic's reaction rolls. Having someone speak the language of an encountered monster can mean the difference between pulling a masterful Yojimbo, or getting into a high-risk, low-reward fight.
Inheritance - At the DM's option, each player can have a one-time heir to whom all their treasure and equipment (minus 10% for the taxman) will go to in the event of their character's death. The heir has to be a new level 1 character.
"Hopeless characters" - Here defined as below average in every ability, or more than score in the 3-6 range.
This chapter ends with an example of character creation, as a female player rolls up Morgan Ironwolf. I have the feeling that this egalitarian approach is one reason why my sister took to D&D when we were kids, and years later introduced my 6 year old niece to the game. Go Moldvay.
I admit, if there's one thing I find unsatisfactory about Moldvay's Basic, it's alignment. It seems like there were a number of good ideas there, but nothing you can point at to say "This is alignment." Rereading it now doesn't provide me with further insight. First there's the idea of the players being aligned with Great Forces. This is hinted at. The first line of the section is, "Three basic ways of life guide the acts of both player characters and monsters." Ways of life hints at more than just personality, or even moral attitudes. The alignments are given proper noun names - a character isn't just Lawful or Chaotic, their alignment is Law or Chaos. There's also a hint that alignment is a game-world phenomenon: "Most Lawful characters will reveal their alignment if asked." As well as the alignment languages. But then it stops there. To my frustration, alignment languages are not fully explained. Why does a character forget them if he changes alignment? Why do they use the new one immediately?
Then there's the idea that Law and Chaos are just euphemism for Good and Evil. Moldvay writes "Lawful behavior is usually the same as behavior that could be called 'good'," "Chaotic behavior is usually the same as behavior that could be called 'evil'," and "Neutral behavior may be considered 'good' or 'evil' (or neither) depending on the situation. In particular, Chaotic gets singled out: "When picking alignments, the characters should know that Chaotics cannot be trusted, even by other Chaotics. A Chaotic character doesn't work well with other player characters." As if to say, "Chaotic is not really for PCs..." But this good-evil parallel is undercut almost immediately by such words as "usually" and the fact that neutral might be good or evil. So the game also hints that you could have good Chaotic characters and evil Lawful characters (which had been in D&D since the early supplements, as well as Holmes.)
So alignment doesn't say my character is good or evil. So is it describing personality, morals, and attitude? Is it less in-world fluff than just a role-playing aid? A short-hand for communicating to other players what kind of character he or she is? But this is undercut by alignment languages, as well as advice for DMs give players a punishment or penalty for not playing in line with the character's alignment.
With our group, I guess we ended up ignoring alignment languages and just playing alignment as broad personality traits. Our characters were basically good - I tended to go with Neutral because I didn't have to worry about "playing to alignment" so much. My sister made Chaotic elves that were basically just whimsical. The alignment section has this picture, which seems to portray the alignments as Good, Evil, and Hipster.
Holmes writes:
Holmes said:
Quickly rounding up character generation:
Equipment - I'm not entirely sure if the Basic equipment list is good because it provides just the right amount of variety without being overwhelming, or if I only think that because it's the standard by which I've judged everything that comes after. Two axes (Battle and Hand), three bows (Cross, Long, and Short), two daggers (Normal and Silver), three swords (Short, normal, and Two-handed), and rounded up by the Mace, Club, Pole Arm, Sling, Spear, and War Hammer. Three kinds of armor, Chain, Leather, and Plate Mail, plus the Shield. Clothing only is AC 9, Leather is AC 7, Chain is AC 5, and Plate Mail is AC 3. Add the shield in between those, and you've got every number from 9 to 2, which is kinda elegant. Variety without analysis paralysis. Unfortunately, it wouldn't be until the Expert Set that equipment got much in the way of explanation. The noble 10' pole is here, but I can't see any reference to what it's used for.
Languages - a table is provided with 20 intelligent monsters from the Basic book. Monsters only have a 20% chance of speaking Common, except for Dragons who will speak both Dragon and Common if they speak at all. I feel this is something that's fallen to the wayside in later editions -- and not without reason. But languages take on a whole new meaning when used in conjunction with Basic's reaction rolls. Having someone speak the language of an encountered monster can mean the difference between pulling a masterful Yojimbo, or getting into a high-risk, low-reward fight.
Inheritance - At the DM's option, each player can have a one-time heir to whom all their treasure and equipment (minus 10% for the taxman) will go to in the event of their character's death. The heir has to be a new level 1 character.
"Hopeless characters" - Here defined as below average in every ability, or more than score in the 3-6 range.
This chapter ends with an example of character creation, as a female player rolls up Morgan Ironwolf. I have the feeling that this egalitarian approach is one reason why my sister took to D&D when we were kids, and years later introduced my 6 year old niece to the game. Go Moldvay.
Similar Threads
