AD&D 1E Rules that are kinda cool but everyone forgot

This.

Not sure why people didn't just read the rules I quoted. It's right in that text.

The original death at -10 rule is the one in the 1E DMG, but you only qualify to bleed until -10 if knocked to exactly 0HP, or optionally as low as -3. Under the 1E rule if damage takes you to -1 or below (or, optionally, -4 or below) you just die. If you're knocked to 0 (or optionally as low as -3) you get the bleeding rule and can last until -10. Here, I'll quote it again.

[....]

2E made the whole thing an optional rule and simplified it so you qualify to bleed if you're knocked anywhere between 0 and -9.
Somehow we got to the 2e version (or close enough) by about 1983. What we had (and still have today):

Get hit down to anywhere between 0 and -9 and you need to roll equal or under [your Con score modified by your current h.p. amount] in order to stay conscious. Conscious characters in the -1 to -9 range operate at penalties that escalate as you approach -10. Conscious characters bleed out at a slower rate than unconscious characters.

There's lots of other stuff about curing being harder etc. but that's irrelevant here.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

One I remember is item saving throws. One of the reasons that Cone of Cold was higher level than Fireball was because it was less likely to destroy the enemy treasure you were fighting them to obtain.
Huh. I always thought it was higher because fewer creatures had innate cold resistance and that items/devices of cold resistance were less common.

That, and 4th level needed its own AoE damage spell.
 

In the DMG, I feel like there's so much that could be done with the Reputed Magical Properties of Gems and Appendix J: Herbs, Spices, and Medicinal Vegetables sections.
There's massive design space around magical herbs, and they're an excellent element to give Rangers as part of their niche.

We've had magic herbs since forever, and the backstory around the adventure I'm running right now is all about their history and development.
 

Somehow we got to the 2e version (or close enough) by about 1983. What we had (and still have today):

Get hit down to anywhere between 0 and -9 and you need to roll equal or under [your Con score modified by your current h.p. amount] in order to stay conscious. Conscious characters in the -1 to -9 range operate at penalties that escalate as you approach -10. Conscious characters bleed out at a slower rate than unconscious characters.

There's lots of other stuff about curing being harder etc. but that's irrelevant here.

I've got con checks for anyone in body points. Con+HP - so folks might fail at 3/4 body points.
 


Huh. I always thought it was higher because fewer creatures had innate cold resistance and that items/devices of cold resistance were less common.

That, and 4th level needed its own AoE damage spell.
Aside: 5th level.
Well, I did say, "one of," which has the advantage of being non-exclusive. I'm sure 'and Xth level needs some damage spells' applies to all of them that didn't port over from Chainmail (fireball and lightning bolt).
 

There's massive design space around magical herbs, and they're an excellent element to give Rangers as part of their niche.

We've had magic herbs since forever, and the backstory around the adventure I'm running right now is all about their history and development.
There's so much you can do with it! Yeah, it's practically made for Rangers and Druids. And if I ever get around to running that all-dwarves campaign I've been dreaming of for decades, I can think of so many ways to incorporate the gems section.

I’m fond of the Artifacts and Relics section in the DMG.
The hints and lore of it is pretty enticing. And to this day I dig how each artifact can be different in each campaign.
 

Saw a video this morning about Basic/1e and level limits. Demi-humans such as elves and dwarves had cool powers such as poison save bonus or dark vision at the expense of capping out at a level such as 12, where humans could go on to max out at 50 or whatever the edition you were playing. The point was to trade early goodies as an elf or something or take the long plan of being able to get to high levels and leave the others behind. This made for a human dominated world the author was saying that Gygax was looking for. You might become the best halfling around and cap out at level 8, but the humans are now 15 and you might die rather easy if you still are hanging around with them. It also had points for a short game only going to level 5-7 and then it would not matter.

It was interesting and made me think of the newer editions that moved away from that. I remember that I liked halflings and dwarves and only getting to a certain level was frustrating as a kid. Things moved away from this with expansions into clerics for any race and then eventually anyone can be anything. Then the game needed to make humans more powerful to get something the other were getting from racial benefits. Not sure if we should have something, but most of my games do not go above 12-13th level so it might not matter .
 

Saw a video this morning about Basic/1e and level limits. Demi-humans such as elves and dwarves had cool powers such as poison save bonus or dark vision at the expense of capping out at a level such as 12, where humans could go on to max out at 50 or whatever the edition you were playing. The point was to trade early goodies as an elf or something or take the long plan of being able to get to high levels and leave the others behind. This made for a human dominated world the author was saying that Gygax was looking for. You might become the best halfling around and cap out at level 8, but the humans are now 15 and you might die rather easy if you still are hanging around with them. It also had points for a short game only going to level 5-7 and then it would not matter.

It was interesting and made me think of the newer editions that moved away from that. I remember that I liked halflings and dwarves and only getting to a certain level was frustrating as a kid. Things moved away from this with expansions into clerics for any race and then eventually anyone can be anything. Then the game needed to make humans more powerful to get something the other were getting from racial benefits. Not sure if we should have something, but most of my games do not go above 12-13th level so it might not matter .
Yeah, part of the problem with level limits is that in practice most games never get to them or go much above them.

While Gary rationalized level limits as necessary for game balance and to justify humans being the predominant species, even he increased them over time, apparently because he learned through experience that they weren't fun.

In the 1974 original rules the Dwarf can only reach 6th level as a Fighter. A year later in Greyhawk Gary changed the rules to allow Dwarves to get to 7th level if they had a 17 Strength, to 8th with an 18. And added the Thief option with unlimited advancement, as well as the ability to multi-class. Similarly, in 1978 AD&D 1E the level limits were increased again (for example, all Dwarves could now reach 9th level Fighter), and then when Unearthed Arcana came out in '85 it increased level limits yet AGAIN; at least for the new sub-races.

And the 2E designers raised them even further. They actually put the limits in the DMG instead of the PH (though they mention in the PH that limits exist, and repeat Gary's rationalization), but in addition to raising them (Dwarf Fighters can now reach 15th!), they warn the DM that such limits can be un-fun, and contextualize them with additional optional rules for exceeding those limits with high ability scores, or advancing further, just more slowly, costing more XP, rather than the limits being hard limits.

This is symptomatic of what most DMs can tell you- that if you actually run a game long enough to reach those level limits, they create an unenjoyable experience for the players impacted by them. They are attached to those characters and want to see them continue to advance! And so Gary, like the 2E designers after him, kept raising the limits! Of course, if you keep making exceptions and raising the limits, the idea that those limits are necessary becomes obviously spurious.

In reality, of course, giving demihumans lots of free abilities which cost no XP starting at 1st level, in return for imposing a limit to advancement someday in the future (which the game may never reach, even if the DM ever DID actually stick by that), is not balance. It's just imbalance in two different directions at different times. In the early game the demihuman is just better. And at high levels once the human gets a chance to leave them behind in level, the human is just better. At almost no time are they actually equal.
 

Yeah, part of the problem with level limits is that in practice most games never get to them or go much above them.

While Gary rationalized level limits as necessary for game balance and to justify humans being the predominant species, even he increased them over time, apparently because he learned through experience that they weren't fun.
Well, they are sort of needed if there is multi classing going on with splitting of XP. Ran through the GDQ series with an all elf campaign, and the pure fighter was obviously outclassed by all the Magic-user/<something else> in the party even if he was one level higher than them in fighter. We weren't using level limits in this case but if I did it again, I'd keep them (in some form) for multi classed characters and ignore them for single classed characters.
 

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Remove ads

Top