Rules that are Unique to OD&D

[Admin Pete]

Over on the blog Smoldering Wizard ~ Old-School Role Playing in a post titled The Many Unique Rules of OD&D, Doug M. (the blogs author) for each of the 3LBBs, creates a list of rules that are unique to OD&D. I think he is right, I think most if not all are unique to OD&D; however, I would like comments and review from some who know other systems better than I do.  What I have done here is take each rule he has posted for each of the 3LBBs and make some comments relative to each one.  Please check it and see if I have missed anything.

He states:
A few are carried into Holmes or Moldvay Basic (some as optional rules), but the combined flavor of these rules was never seen again.What I am going to do here is go through and comment on each one of those rules as to whether I use it as it is or do I house rule something else. (Note that I began playing OD&D in Sept of 1975.) Everything showing in quote is in the rules and taken from his post. Yeah, he did the work to pull the information out and I am just commenting on it here.

Men & Magic Volume 1:

Referee rolls starting abilities (3d6 in order) and starting gold.

Any OD&D refs out there use this rule? Bitd (in college) we never used this rule at all; however, a few years ago when I started up a new campaign only playing once per month I did it this way before the game, handed the players a few character sheets to choose from and there were no issues with my players doing this. In one playtest I ran for some ideas, I did not even give them a choice of sheets, I just gave them the one I wanted them to run for the playtest, again no issues. What has been your experience with this, if you have done it?

Encumbrance is measured in gold pieces, with 10 GP per pound and a maximum of 3000 GP.

Bitd and up to recently I have always used it this way, but I never liked it. Now as noted in my series of posts starting with Money (Treasure), the OD&D Economy & Equipment 001, I am starting to convert to a Silver Economy and as part of that process I am also correcting the coin size and the way encumbrance is measured. This is something in process and the information posted up until today date in that series of posts is not yet in the final form.

Players can be monsters, although there are no rules given for handling them.

Have you ever done this? I have done a few, one of which was for dragons. The player wanted to play a dragon and that was a toughy to do since IMC while dragons can be killed, other than death by violence they are nigh on immortal creatures. I worked out a life cycle - part of which is when dragons will "hang" with other creatures such as men and the demi-humans. I will post that here one of these days.

Non-player monsters can be subdued or captured and sold.

This is something was we did a few times, but was not used very much. I am not really sure why we did not use it anymore than we did.

Hit points are rolled anew at each level.

This is exactly what we did bitd to start with, but I have also used a multitude of different house rules over the years too. I have done max at first level and then role each level once, max at first level and then roll each level once with a min of 2 per die, max at first level and then roll each level and keep track of each roll so that when you go up a level you get the chance to improve the previous roll.

There are no strength bonuses, only a bonus (or penalty) to earned experience for Fighting-Men.

When I use just the 3LBBs, this is the way I have always done it. Sometimes I use just the 3LBBs and sometimes I add things from the Supplements.

Dexterity does not affect armor class, it only confers a bonus or penalty to missile weapon to-hit rolls, and then only +/-1.

When I use just the 3LBBs, this is the way I have always done it.

All weapons do 1d6 damage (the one exception is a spear impalement doing double or triple damage).

When I use just the 3LBBs, this is the way I have always done it.

Magic-Users and Clerics must carry one spell book for each level of spell they know.

I have never done this, neither bitd nor currently. Characters are assumed to have one spell book containing all of their spells.

Clerics must choose to be either Lawful or Chaotic by 7th level.

In the original rules Clerics chose at the time of Character Creation and it was this was for the 1st through the 3rd printing (I have never seen a 4th printing so I don't know which way it was in the 4th printing); however, in the 5th print (IIRC) and later it was changed to the choose by 7th level. I have always played it that players chose at the time of Character Creation.

Cure light wounds acts over a full turn (10 minutes).

Two things here -one: both bitd and currently I have always played it that the healing acts immediately in the same round the spell is cast and two: one of the first house rules I ever implemented and used (and that was at the very beginning) was to change melee rounds to six sec instead of one min and that made a turn one minute long. I did this because I had seen swordplay in movies and how fast and furious it could be; later on when I saw live fencing matches how fast it could move, I was certain that the house rule was one of my better decisions. In addition, Warriors of Mars used 10 second rounds and it is reported that the original manuscript of Empire of the Petal Throne used one second melee rounds.
Monsters are worth 100XP per hit die. Fun fact – in the first OD&D supplement, Greyhawk, this formula is mocked as “ridiculous”.
Bitd I used this and I still do.

Experience is however limited by the ratio of monster and dungeon level (defeating an orc on the 5th dungeon level gives only 1/5 experience).

I have never used it this way, neither bitd nor currently.

Players may designate a relative to inherit their possessions should they die.

I have never used it this, neither bitd nor currently. I am not sure why, because I am and was aware of the rule, we just never used it.

[Admin Pete]

Over on the blog Smoldering Wizard ~ Old-School Role Playing in a post titled The Many Unique Rules of OD&D, Doug M. (the blogs author) for each of the 3LBBs, creates a list of rules that are unique to OD&D. He has a lot of other posts you should check out, but this one was of direct interest to me.

He states:

Monsters & Treasure Volume 2:


Monsters (later clarified to include players who are Fighting-Men - See the 1975 OD&D FAQ from TSR) gain one attack per round as a normal creature against normal men, for each of their own hit dice (“normal” is open to interpretation). Attack bonuses apply to only one such attack.

Bitd and currently we always defined nornal men as not being PCs or classed NPCs. A troll was always played by us bitd as a claw, claw and a bite or three attacks every round. Using this rule and calling 1st levels normal men leads to 18 attacks by a troll against a first level party for just the first melee round, so we did not and do not do that. On the other hand we do not give higher level PCs those extra attacks against 1 hit die monsters either. I have considered doing it if I had a group of only experienced players who knew up front that the rule would be enforced.

Only plate armor can be magical.

I searched my memory and could not remember anyplace in Monsters & Treasure Volume 2 that stated or implied that only plate armor could be magical, then I went back and read through the entire volume and still do not see anything that would lead to that conclusion. I don't have a non-hobbit printing (6th print OCE) readily available, so I will have to dig one out later and check it also. Anyone else, please chime in, am I missing something here?

Armor class is static depending on the base armor worn, magical armor bonuses subtract from the opponent’s to-hit roll.

Yep, that is what it says, but bitd we never once used it that way. Plate armor was AC 3 and magic plate armor +3 was AC 0, we always did that way from the very beginning.

Magic shield bonuses only stack with armor bonuses against 1/3 of attacks.

This is a rule that from the very beginning bitd we always ignored. We just did not want to spend time making that extra roll on every attack where a shield was involved.

Certain magic helmets are considered non-protective and will be struck and smashed 10% of the time a hit occurs.

The non-protective helms were worn by magic-users in our campaign and since they were unamored anyway it was a non-issue.

Magic swords confer a to-hit bonus only, unless they have a special purpose against a specific monster class. In that case, they provide a to-hit and damage bonus.

Bitd we did not follow this in a strict sense at all, we added many, many swords to the treasure table so that at least half of the magic swords in the campaign had a damage bonus, and some only had a damage bonus but no to hit bonus.

All magic swords have an alignment, touching a sword of a differing alignment causes the player to take damage.

We always followed this rule.

50% of magic swords are intelligent and will have one or more powers.

I looked this up just to confirm it, the rule reads as follows:

Intelligence: There are two factors considered under Intelligence, mental power and communicative ability. These factors are both determined by a single die roll:

This means that 50% of Swords had an intelligence of 1-6 and could not communicate and the user had to discover any powers it had, and 50% had an intelligence of 7-12 and could communicate. So 100% have one or more powers.

10% of all magic swords will have a special purpose.

We liked this and always rolled for it. Special Purpose swords were fun!

Scrolls are for Magic-Users only (there are no Clerical scrolls), although protection scrolls can be used by any player.

We always house-ruled that 33% of Scrolls were for Clerics and otherwise kept it the same.

[Admin Pete]

Over on the blog Smoldering Wizard ~ Old-School Role Playing in a post titled The Many Unique Rules of OD&D, Doug M. (the blogs author) for each of the 3LBBs, creates a list of rules that are unique to OD&D. He has a lot of other posts you should check out, but this one was of direct interest to me.

He states:

The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures Volume 3:


The condition of surprise allows a free move and attack, or two attacks (if the distance rolled is 10 feet, although the second attack could be construed as merely winning initiative the first combat round).

Bitd we did use this rule and the italic above is an interpretation as it is not stated that way, but it is in effect exactly what happens.

There is a 25% chance a surprised player will drop a held item.

This rule we never used at all and if I were to implement it, I would reduce it to a 5% chance.

“Angry Villager Rule” – Players who commit some sort of offense in-game can be brought back into line by an angry mob, thieves from a thieves’ quarter, city watches or even insertion of a Conan-type character.

I love this rule, never had or needed to use it, but I love it.

Encountering a Fighting-Man stronghold will result in players being challenged to a jousting match, or paying a toll of 100 to 600 GP.

Never have used this option. I usually have enough other stuff going on, there has never been a need.

Encountering a Magic-User stronghold will result in either a Geas, “request” for a magic item or toll of 1,000 to 4,000 GP.

Never have used this option. I usually have enough other stuff going on, there has never been a need.

Encountering a Cleric stronghold will result in either a Quest or a 10% tithe of all money and jewels (lawful Clerics) or an attempt to kill the players who cannot pay (chaotic Clerics).

Never have used this option. I usually have enough other stuff going on, there has never been a need.

All monsters can see in the dark, but no players can do so. Monsters serving a player (either by subdual or charm) cannot see in the dark, however.

I always have played this that only humans can not see in the dark. I have always played it that elves, dwarves, hobbits, gnomes etc., can see in the dark. I understand the reason for the rule, which is to force the players to always have to use artifical light - torches and such - which leads to them never being about to surprise the monsters and always being the ones at risk of being surprised. However, an NPC (monster) elf being able to see in the dark, but a PC elf not being able to see in the dark for me breaks that "suspension of disbelief" required for full enjoyment of rpgs.

Burning oil is only mentioned as a way of deterring monster pursuit.

Good catch! I don't recall anyplace else it is mentioned, although we used it for lots of things, especially mummies and trolls.

Most dungeon doors are difficult to open for players and doors always close on their own, but monsters have no problem opening them.

Great rule!

There is a 1/3 chance that doors spiked open by players will close due to the spikes slipping.

Another great rule!

Movement is given in inches, but this translates to feet indoors and yards outdoors.

This makes sense to me, it is dark, you are checking for traps, secret doors, the floor is wet and slippery, etc.; so you will be moving slower.

There are detailed Aerial and Naval combat rules.

Bitd we never used those at all. The campaign I stared in 2009 spent about 2 years of game time on a ship. I thought it was a lot of fun.

[Admin Pete]

If anyone can think of any other rules that should be on this list, please share them with us!

[tetramorph]

Admin Pete, here is my idea for a folder descriptor for this folder:

"Discuss core rules especially as they pertain to campaigns and settings"

[Admin Pete]

Jan 20, 2015 18:38:58 GMT -5 tetramorph said:

Admin Pete, here is my idea for a folder descriptor for this folder:

"Discuss core rules especially as they pertain to campaigns and settings"

I stuck a couple of extra words in, what do you think!

[tetramorph]

We play with the "Planet Eris" house rules (a quick google will find the doc for you) at our local game here in town.

We use the inheritance rule a lot. All our characters die all the time so it is an important way to roll up a character with some decent equipment, armor, and perhaps magic items!

[waysoftheearth]

A few things I noticed while skimming thru...

Hit points are rolled anew at each level.

I'm pretty sure this is not explicit in the 3LBBs, but it's a common interpretation for sure.

Dice for Accumulateive Hits (Hit Dice): This indicates the number of dice which are rolled in order to determine how many hit points a character can take. (M&M p18)

There are no strength bonuses, only a bonus (or penalty) to earned experience for Fighting-Men.

Strength will also adjust a cleric's Prime Requisite and "aid in opening traps and so on" (M&M p10). The 3LBBs may not dwell overly on the strength ability score, but they frequently imply a relationship between size and strength. E.g., ogres and giants deal more damage in combat. E.g., Stuck doors normally require a throw of 1-2 to open, but U&WA tells us that "smaller and lighter" creatures will need to roll a 1 (U&WA p9).

In the original rules Clerics chose at the time of Character Creation and it was this was for the 1st through the 3rd printing (I have never seen a 4th printing so I don't know which way it was in the 4th printing);

The 4th print has this:
Note that Clerics are either "Law" or "Chaos", and there is a sharp distinction between them. If a Patriarch receiving the above benefits changes sides, all the benefits will immediately be removed!

Cure light wounds acts over a full turn (10 minutes).

The 3LBBs say only: "During the course of one full turn this spell will remove hits from a wounded character (including elves, dwarves, etc.)." (M&M p31)

The 10-minute part has been appended presumably because dungeon exploration turns are said to be ten-minutes long in U&WA. But the spell might conceivably be used during a one-day wilderness exploration turn, a one-week campaign turn, or a one-minute combat turn (if such things are used); the literal interpretation is moreso, I believe, that it should take up the cleric player's full turn to cast the spell, whatever the period of that turn may be.

[waysoftheearth]

Might as well continue now...

I searched my memory and could not remember anyplace in Monsters & Treasure Volume 2 that stated or implied that only plate armor could be magical, then I went back and read through the entire volume and still do not see anything that would lead to that conclusion. I don't have a non-hobbit printing (6th print OCE) readily available, so I will have to dig one out later and check it also. Anyone else, please chime in, am I missing something here?

It's from Greyhawk. On p15 there is a table of armor and shields that gives their respective ACs. The only magical armors are plate.

Magic shield bonuses only stack with armor bonuses against 1/3 of attacks.

"If a shield's bonus is greater than that of the armor there is a one-third chance that the blow will be caught by the sheild, thus giving the additional subrtraction." (M&T p31)
My reading is that it's a case of either the smaller subtraction of the armor or the larger subtraction of the shield, but I guess it go either way.

This means that 50% of Swords had an intelligence of 1-6 and could not communicate and the user had to discover any powers it had, and 50% had an intelligence of 7-12 and could communicate. So 100% have one or more powers.

There's a 58.333% chance of rolling a 7+ on 2d6, so 58.333% of magical swords are able to communicate, and 41.667% of magical swords are unable to communicate.

"Intelligence: There are two factors considered under Intelligence, mental power and communicative ability. These factors are both determined by a single die roll:" (M&Tp28)
Note especially that it states mental powers and intelligence are both determined by a single die roll. Therefore a throw of 2-6 (41.667% likely) results in an magical sword which is unable to communicate and has no additional powers. Even if you choose to roll for communication and additional powers seperately, a result of 2-6 (41.667% likely) will still yield no additional powers.

The footnote given for non-communicative magic swords (those with 2-6 intelligence and no additional powers) then says:

"Although the sword cannot communicate it will endow its user with the powers it has, but these will have to be discovered by the user."

This footnote presumably refers to the "basic" sword powers enumerated in the table on p23. These powers can be had by any sword, regardless of its intelligence, and include: which types it will perform better against, wishes, locate object, energy drain, and charm person.

Scrolls are for Magic-Users only (there are no Clerical scrolls)

"There is a 25% chance that any scroll of spells found will contain those usable by clerics." (M&T p24)

[Admin Pete]

Feb 2, 2015 7:18:24 GMT -5 waysoftheearth said:

A few things I noticed while skimming thru...

Hit points are rolled anew at each level.

I'm pretty sure this is not explicit in the 3LBBs, but it's a common interpretation for sure.

Dice for Accumulateive Hits (Hit Dice): This indicates the number of dice which are rolled in order to determine how many hit points a character can take. (M&M p18)

There are no strength bonuses, only a bonus (or penalty) to earned experience for Fighting-Men.

Strength will also adjust a cleric's Prime Requisite and "aid in opening traps and so on" (M&M p10). The 3LBBs may not dwell overly on the strength ability score, but they frequently imply a relationship between size and strength. E.g., ogres and giants deal more damage in combat. E.g., Stuck doors normally require a throw of 1-2 to open, but U&WA tells us that "smaller and lighter" creatures will need to roll a 1 (U&WA p9).

In the original rules Clerics chose at the time of Character Creation and it was this was for the 1st through the 3rd printing (I have never seen a 4th printing so I don't know which way it was in the 4th printing);

The 4th print has this:
Note that Clerics are either "Law" or "Chaos", and there is a sharp distinction between them. If a Patriarch receiving the above benefits changes sides, all the benefits will immediately be removed!

Cure light wounds acts over a full turn (10 minutes).

The 3LBBs say only: "During the course of one full turn this spell will remove hits from a wounded character (including elves, dwarves, etc.)." (M&M p31)

The 10-minute part has been appended presumably because dungeon exploration turns are said to be ten-minutes long in U&WA. But the spell might conceivably be used during a one-day wilderness exploration turn, a one-week campaign turn, or a one-minute combat turn (if such things are used); the literal interpretation is moreso, I believe, that it should take up the cleric player's full turn to cast the spell, whatever the period of that turn may be.

Great points there, yeah it is not explicit that hit points get re-rolled.

I see the 4th print has he same language as the first three printings do regarding clerics and being either "Law or Chaos". I missed the "Cure light wounds acts over a full turn (10 minutes)", since I have never used a 10 minute turn and a lot of other people do. I have always used 1 minute combat turns where many use a 10 minute combat turn.

IMC all spells are take one melee round to cast and then run for their duration, where applicable. Healing spells all happen instantly when cast IMC, I have never done it any other way, so I am less versed in rules that I never use.

[Admin Pete]

Feb 2, 2015 17:28:54 GMT -5 waysoftheearth said:

Might as well continue now...

I searched my memory and could not remember anyplace in Monsters & Treasure Volume 2 that stated or implied that only plate armor could be magical, then I went back and read through the entire volume and still do not see anything that would lead to that conclusion. I don't have a non-hobbit printing (6th print OCE) readily available, so I will have to dig one out later and check it also. Anyone else, please chime in, am I missing something here?

It's from Greyhawk. On p15 there is a table of armor and shields that gives their respective ACs. The only magical armors are plate.

Magic shield bonuses only stack with armor bonuses against 1/3 of attacks.

"If a shield's bonus is greater than that of the armor there is a one-third chance that the blow will be caught by the sheild, thus giving the additional subrtraction." (M&T p31)
My reading is that it's a case of either the smaller subtraction of the armor or the larger subtraction of the shield, but I guess it go either way.

This means that 50% of Swords had an intelligence of 1-6 and could not communicate and the user had to discover any powers it had, and 50% had an intelligence of 7-12 and could communicate. So 100% have one or more powers.

There's a 58.333% chance of rolling a 7+ on 2d6, so 58.333% of magical swords are able to communicate, and 41.667% of magical swords are unable to communicate.

"Intelligence: There are two factors considered under Intelligence, mental power and communicative ability. These factors are both determined by a single die roll:" (M&Tp28)
Note especially that it states mental powers and intelligence are both determined by a single die roll. Therefore a throw of 2-6 (41.667% likely) results in an magical sword which is unable to communicate and has no additional powers. Even if you choose to roll for communication and additional powers seperately, a result of 2-6 (41.667% likely) will still yield no additional powers.

The footnote given for non-communicative magic swords (those with 2-6 intelligence and no additional powers) then says:

"Although the sword cannot communicate it will endow its user with the powers it has, but these will have to be discovered by the user."

This footnote presumably refers to the "basic" sword powers enumerated in the table on p23. These powers can be had by any sword, regardless of its intelligence, and include: which types it will perform better against, wishes, locate object, energy drain, and charm person.

Scrolls are for Magic-Users only (there are no Clerical scrolls)

"There is a 25% chance that any scroll of spells found will contain those usable by clerics." (M&T p24)

I did not think that the plate armor thing was in the 3 LBBs and I have never used that optional treatment from Greyhawk. On the magic swords I wrote without thinking and put down the percentage for 1-12 not 2-12 (duh). On the swords, I got caught in my ever changing house rules again.  That scroll comment is a later change that is not in the first print.

[waysoftheearth]

Feb 2, 2015 20:19:29 GMT -5 Admin Pete said:

I did not think that the plate armor thing was in the 3 LBBs and I have never used that optional treatment from Greyhawk.

Hmm, I read this one as a "clarification" rather than an "optional extra", but YMMV, sure.

Feb 2, 2015 20:19:29 GMT -5 Admin Pete said:

That scroll comment is a later change that is not in the first print.

The clerical scrolls rule appears in the Correction Sheet that shipped with the 1st (gamma), 2nd, and 3rd print boxed sets, and was subsequently integrated into the 5th and subsequent prints, so I read that one more-or-less as being there right from the get go.

[Admin Pete]

Feb 3, 2015 2:46:37 GMT -5 waysoftheearth said:

Feb 2, 2015 20:19:29 GMT -5 Admin Pete said:

I did not think that the plate armor thing was in the 3 LBBs and I have never used that optional treatment from Greyhawk.

Hmm, I read this one as a "clarification" rather than an "optional extra", but YMMV, sure.

Feb 2, 2015 20:19:29 GMT -5 Admin Pete said:

That scroll comment is a later change that is not in the first print.

The clerical scrolls rule appears in the Correction Sheet that shipped with the 1st (gamma), 2nd, and 3rd print boxed sets, and was subsequently integrated into the 5th and subsequent prints, so I read that one more-or-less as being there right from the get go.

I read all the supplements as being completely optional and not as clarifications, but as you say "YMMV". I missed that was in the Correction Sheet, so what we always house ruled was the rule. You are much more scholarly that I am, which I view as a big help to me. Thank you!

[merias]

Hi All, I'm the poster in question of that blog article, I just saw this forum linked from ODD74, so am a bit late to the game :). I see I made a few other mistakes I need to fix. And thanks for pointing out the table on p. 15 of Greyhawk, Ways, I had forgotten where I saw that tidbit about magic plate armor.

[Admin Pete]

Feb 10, 2015 18:20:59 GMT -5 merias said:

Hi All, I'm the poster in question of that blog article, I just saw this forum linked from ODD74, so am a bit late to the game . I see I made a few other mistakes I need to fix. And thanks for pointing out the table on p. 15 of Greyhawk, Ways, I had forgotten where I saw that tidbit about magic plate armor.

Hi merias, glad to have you!  I thought that blog article was great and waysoftheearth pointed out my faulty memory in few places. I will go back and update my blog post once you are satisfied with your updates. Have an Exalt!

[merias]

I've updated the post, thank you both! At some point I'll go back and put page references and what print I'm using for each bullet point (which is the latest WOTC reprint, and a photocopy of an older print, but from what you've said is at least a 5th print based on the Cleric alignment language).

A couple of notes - the magic sword intelligence table ranges from 1-12, not 2-12, at least in the later printings. Also, I see now that the note about unintelligent swords endowing the user with powers refers to the treasure table powers as Ways noted, not the special abilities table in that section.

On clerical scrolls - there is an apparent contradiction of the sentence Ways' quoted ("There is a 25% chance that any scroll of spells found will contain those usable by clerics." (M&T p24)), and the one on p.32 of M&M "All Scrolls are Spells for Magic-Users and regardless of the level of the spell they can be used by any Magic-User capable of reading them.". Which I suppose could mean that some scrolls contain Cleric spells, and Magic-Users can use those too, but not Clerics (if I can find the forum thread or blog post I saw on this I'll post the link, but it seems this was poor wording and of course is open to house-ruling :)).

I still maintain the "re-roll HP every level" is explicit in the example on p.18 of M&M, where the Superhero rolls 8 dice and adds 2, he does not roll one die and add 1, adding that to his prior 7th level HP total.

[Admin Pete]

Feb 12, 2015 14:24:41 GMT -5 merias said:

I've updated the post, thank you both! At some point I'll go back and put page references and what print I'm using for each bullet point (which is the latest WOTC reprint, and a photocopy of an older print, but from what you've said is at least a 5th print based on the Cleric alignment language).

A couple of notes - the magic sword intelligence table ranges from 1-12, not 2-12, at least in the later printings. Also, I see now that the note about unintelligent swords endowing the user with powers refers to the treasure table powers as Ways noted, not the special abilities table in that section.

On clerical scrolls - there is an apparent contradiction of the sentence Ways' quoted ("There is a 25% chance that any scroll of spells found will contain those usable by clerics." (M&T p24)), and the one on p.32 of M&T "All Scrolls are Spells for Magic-Users and regardless of the level of the spell they can be used by any Magic-User capable of reading them.". Which I suppose could mean that some scrolls contain Cleric spells, and Magic-Users can use those too, but not Clerics (if I can find the forum thread or blog post I saw on this I'll post the link, but it seems this was poor wording and of course is open to house-ruling .

I still maintain the "re-roll HP every level" is explicit in the example on p.18 of M&M, where the Superhero rolls 8 dice and adds 2, he does not roll one die and add 1, adding that to his prior 7th level HP total.

In regard to the scrolls, I suspect (also given there are so many typos and the general lack of editing) given that an errata sheet was issued that added the comment to the 1st print that Ways' quoted that is found in later prints, that a similar errata should have been submitted to correct the second statement on page 32. As it is, there is an inconsistency. A lot of the vagueness in the rules is intentional, but it is likely that the contradictions are a function of the lack of editing and that the errata for the one page shows the intention and likely should be applied to the second page. In any event I always house ruled it anyway.

As for the "re-roll HP every level", I agree that the example could be interpreted that way and bitd that is the way we did interpret it; however, I am not sure that was actually the intention. There are several OD&D scholars and you might pose the question to them.

[merias]

Feb 12, 2015 16:04:48 GMT -5 Admin Pete said:

As for the "re-roll HP every level", I agree that the example could be interpreted that way and bitd that is the way we did interpret it; however, I am not sure that was actually the intention. There are several OD&D scholars and you might pose the question to them.

I hope my statement does not come off as me being a know-it-all :). I am still very new to OD&D compared to others. I also know that is an old topic of discussion. I've even read that Gary himself did not use this re-roll every level method, it just seemed hard to interpret the rule as written otherwise, even broken as it is. I saw a good house rule on ODD74 that followed the 're-roll every level' method, but keep the old total if you rolled lower. That seemed a decent fix.

[Admin Pete]

Feb 12, 2015 16:51:38 GMT -5 merias said:

I hope my statement does not come off as me being a know-it-all . I am still very new to OD&D compared to others. I also know that is an old topic of discussion. I've even read that Gary himself did not use this re-roll every level method, it just seemed hard to interpret the rule as written otherwise, even broken as it is. I saw a good house rule on ODD74 that followed the 're-roll every level' method, but keep the old total if you rolled lower. That seemed a decent fix.

No, not at all, you're cool! Yeah, I have run it a lot of different ways. Maybe I will do a thread on that.

[aldarron]

So here is an old thread I started along the same lines. Though I have learned better about a few things since 2010, there are a couple topics there not mentioned in the 'blog.

OD&D Quirks


WotE has another thread that lists a few more things but it wanders pretty far off topic after the first page.  That's here:


OD&D Curios

[waysoftheearth]

I'd love to find the time to do another (!) review of rules unique to OD&D, but I can't see if/when that will happen...


But, off the top of my head, I'm pretty sure that my list of the uniquely "OD&D" features would include:

. The distinction between "normal" and "heroic/fantastic" types,
. The dichotomy between "normal" and "fantastic" combat,
. A "turn" being any period in which a player takes his turn rather than a fixed period,
. OD&D's method for morale checks using two six-sided dice,
. The use of language such as "men" (not Humans), "man-types" (not demi-humans), "Crosses" (not Holy symbols), etc.
. Use of number ranges rather than d-notation for specifying randomness,

And a few more for the really dedicated readers would include:
. Inheritance of Chainmail's basic order of battle and MtM combat framework,
. The use of turn "segments" including "surprise", "moves", and "melee" within the turn,
. A "round" being an exchange of blows rather than a fixed period of time.

There's probably a bunch more detailed stuff too, but the above list seems--to me--to be the "big stuff" that is unique to OD&D compared to later editions...

[Admin Pete]

There is no rush, and if someone else does it first then of course you can look that over. I think the funny thing is when you start looking at the length of the list of things that are unique to OD&D, it becomes apparent just how different the style and flavor of later versions is in comparison. I know some people see OD&D / Holmes / B/X / BECMI / RC and AD&D as all the same; however, I do not, to me they are all night and day different from each other. That is not to be taken as criticism.

[waysoftheearth]

Feb 12, 2015 14:24:41 GMT -5 merias said:

At some point I'll go back and put page references and what print I'm using for each bullet point (which is the latest WOTC reprint, and a photocopy of an older print, but from what you've said is at least a 5th print based on the Cleric alignment language).

If you haven't already, you can determine which print(s) you have here.

Feb 12, 2015 14:24:41 GMT -5 merias said:

the magic sword intelligence table ranges from 1-12, not 2-12, at least in the later printings.

Awesome! I've been "seeing" 2-12 all this time but it's not there. Thanks
(FYI--I checked the 1st and 6th prints, they both say 1-12).

Feb 12, 2015 14:24:41 GMT -5 merias said:

On clerical scrolls - there is an apparent contradiction of the sentence Ways' quoted ("There is a 25% chance that any scroll of spells found will contain those usable by clerics." (M&T p24)), and the one on p.32 of M&M "All Scrolls are Spells for Magic-Users and regardless of the level of the spell they can be used by any Magic-User capable of reading them.".

(The second quote is in M&T) I agree with Perilous; the Corrections Sheet was very likely written after the original text was printed, so the corrections are read as "overriding" the original text. It's a pity that the Corrections Sheet wasn't more exhaustive!

Feb 12, 2015 14:24:41 GMT -5 merias said:

I still maintain the "re-roll HP every level" is explicit in the example on p.18 of M&M, where the Superhero rolls 8 dice and adds 2, he does not roll one die and add 1, adding that to his prior 7th level HP total.

Yep, I like that interpretation too (I have my players re-roll all their HD after any stint of "town time"). Perhaps it's a shame that M&M doesn't state when the superhero rolls those dice... or perhaps not

FWIW, I don't think your interpretation is broken. It can work out well that individual PCs experience up and down days, possibly requiring their players to play differently. Your interpretation can also mitigate potential issues around a player getting stuck with a few poor rolls for the rest of his PC's career, players fudging above average hp rolls, etc...

[merias]

Feb 25, 2015 22:30:06 GMT -5 waysoftheearth said:

If you haven't already, you can determine which print(s) you have here.

Thanks, I see it is at least a sixth print, because it has the tolkien references removed.

Feb 25, 2015 22:30:06 GMT -5 waysoftheearth said:

I agree with Perilous; the Corrections Sheet was very likely written after the original text was printed, so the corrections are read as "overriding" the original text. It's a pity that the Corrections Sheet wasn't more exhaustive!

I could only find a corrections sheet at the tail end of Greyhawk - but it does not mention cleric scrolls. Is there another? I don't have it with my photocopy if it was a loose page of corrections.

Feb 25, 2015 22:30:06 GMT -5 waysoftheearth said:

FWIW, I don't think your interpretation is broken. It can work out well that individual PCs experience up and down days, possibly requiring their players to play differently. Your interpretation can also mitigate potential issues around a player getting stuck with a few poor rolls for the rest of his PC's career, players fudging above average hp rolls, etc...

Good point, I was trying to take that sentence literally as written, but in so doing I infused context from future editions - namely the fact that HP are only adjusted at level gains. Also, I was assuming that rolling fewer HP than your previous total is bad, when in fact it may have been a conscious design decision at the time (I think Gary probably did not consider that issue at all, but of course we can't know for sure. I've read from his responses on various forums that in his own games he just had players add a die plus any modifications at each level gain). In any event, as you've shown it can be a fun house rule.

What is fascinating to me is that there are so many of these rules that did not appear in later editions, it's part of the charm of OD&D for sure, and why I like to play it.

[Admin Pete]

Feb 26, 2015 8:18:13 GMT -5 merias said:

Feb 25, 2015 22:30:06 GMT -5 waysoftheearth said:

I agree with Perilous; the Corrections Sheet was very likely written after the original text was printed, so the corrections are read as "overriding" the original text. It's a pity that the Corrections Sheet wasn't more exhaustive!

I could only find a corrections sheet at the tail end of Greyhawk - but it does not mention cleric scrolls. Is there another? I don't have it with my photocopy if it was a loose page of corrections.

The Corrections Sheet is found here, it was issued between the 1st and 2nd printings.

[merias]

Feb 26, 2015 11:14:16 GMT -5 Admin Pete said:

The Corrections Sheet is found here, it was issued between the 1st and 2nd printings.

Your link is broken - but I found it at K&KA:

knightsnknaves.proboards.com/thread/216

and indeed I see the "Page 24, SCROLLS: There is a 25% chance that any scroll of spells found will contain those useable by Clerics."

Thanks for pointing this out, so it appears someone doing the editing forgot to remove the second, contradictory sentence when this was added as an errata.

[Admin Pete]

Feb 26, 2015 12:52:49 GMT -5 merias said:

Feb 26, 2015 11:14:16 GMT -5 Admin Pete said:

The Corrections Sheet is found here, it was issued between the 1st and 2nd printings.

Your link is broken - but I found it at K&KA:

knightsnknaves.proboards.com/thread/216

and indeed I see the "Page 24, SCROLLS: There is a 25% chance that any scroll of spells found will contain those useable by Clerics."

Thanks for pointing this out, so it appears someone doing the editing forgot to remove the second, contradictory sentence when this was added as an errata.



I fixed the link and it should work for all now!

[aldarron]

Jan 20, 2015 18:19:40 GMT -5 Admin Pete said:

Over on the blog Smoldering Wizard ~ Old-School Role Playing in a post titled The Many Unique Rules of OD&D, Doug M. (the blogs author) for each of the 3LBBs, creates a list of rules that are unique to OD&D. He has a lot of other posts you should check out, but this one was of direct interest to me.

He states:

All magic swords have an alignment, touching a sword of a differing alignment causes the player to take damage.

50% of magic swords are intelligent and will have one or more powers.

10% of all magic swords will have a special purpose.

This isn't quite accurate and these aren't particularly unique to OD&D. The magic sword creation rules on p27-30 don't say specifically that all magic swords follow these rules. In fact most of the magic swords in the weapons list on page 23 of U&WA can not be made using these sword creation rules.  

Further the magic sword creation rules in the DMG pp166-167 (Unusual Swords) and the Marsh/Cook Expert rulebook pp x46 & x47 both have the alignment damage, intelligence and special purpose rules mentioned above.  The magic sword creation rules are pretty similar across editions.

One thing that is different in OD&D is that special purpose swords of a given alignment have the ability to either paralyze or disintigrate any "opponent" (possibly multiple opponents depending on your reading of p30).  In later rulesets the sword only has such a power on a victim who has been hit by the sword.   So the possessor can no longer just will it to happen, but has to actually strike a blow.

[waysoftheearth]

Feb 26, 2015 22:01:03 GMT -5 aldarron said:

One thing that is different in OD&D is that special purpose swords of a given alignment have the ability to either paralyze or disintigrate any "opponent" (possibly multiple opponents depending on your reading of p30).  In later rulesets the sword only has such a power on a victim who has been hit by the sword.   So the possessor can no longer just will it to happen, but has to actually strike a blow.

I'm pretty sure a purposed sword's power to paralyse or disintegrate only applies to opponents the sword is specifically purposed to defeat. I'm also inclined to rule these powers are similar to, say, the wand of paralysis and the disintegrate spell so they'd both allow a saving throw... I guess you could rule it an auto at will power, but that seems less fun to me

[aldarron]

Feb 27, 2015 1:55:34 GMT -5 waysoftheearth said:

Feb 26, 2015 22:01:03 GMT -5 aldarron said:

One thing that is different in OD&D is that special purpose swords of a given alignment have the ability to either paralyze or disintigrate any "opponent" (possibly multiple opponents depending on your reading of p30).  In later rulesets the sword only has such a power on a victim who has been hit by the sword.   So the possessor can no longer just will it to happen, but has to actually strike a blow.

I'm pretty sure a purposed sword's power to paralyse or disintegrate only applies to opponents the sword is specifically purposed to defeat. I'm also inclined to rule these powers are similar to, say, the wand of paralysis and the disintegrate spell so they'd both allow a saving throw... I guess you could rule it an auto at will power, but that seems less fun to me

Yeah that sounds about right to me too except that minions of any sort are also affectable: "The special ability will only apply to those whom the sword has been endowed to destroy, or those serving such a creature.
"