Most Arbitrary AD&D Rule Ever?

two · Post by **two** » Thu Mar 01, 2001 11:13 am

Everyone knows AD&D was the first big RPG, and it's not surprising that its unpolished rule system is full of arbitrary "do's" and "don'ts" put there simply to balance gameplay. While later, more sophisticated RPG's have come out that do a much better job at describing spell casting and combat, in a more realistic and fun way, we are still stuck with some silly and arbitrary AD&D rules in BGII.

What are your favorite, most arbitrary AD&D rules ever?

One of mine is indicated by the following scenario: A VERY stubborn 21st level monk is fiddling with a quarterstaff (a 2 handed weapon) when he suddenly sees a kobold racing towards him wielding a +1 fingernail cutter. The stubborn Monk thinks to himself "I'm going to whack that kobold with this large stick like I've seen some clumsy Mages do before". The mystical, magical, battle-scarred Monk lifts the stick but it falls to the ground as soon as combat begins. Monk bends over, picks it up, attempts to hit Kobold but it slips away again. And again. Kobold continues doing 1/8 HP damage a round with his nail-clipper while the Monk fumbles and kicks the quarterstaff around the dungeon. Finally, after being reduced to 10 hp's (almost 21 hours later) the Monk finally gives in, flicks a finger at the Kobold, and it dies. The quarterstaff, alas, remains ungraspeable.

I mean c'mon. C'Mon! Give him a -5 to hit penalty. Give him a -15 to hit penalty. But why-o-why can't a Monk use a quarterstaff at ALL? Arbitrary, presumably for balancing game play. Can't use two handed weapons, period, end of story. Oh, ok. Heck, it don't make sense, but them's the rules.

Any other good ones?

Jhareth of house Noquar · Thu Mar 01, 2001 2:47 pm

Any rules seen as problematic can be modified or withdrawn completely by a competent DM. The old DMG even had a section specifically refering to this... (not quoted, just from memory)
Don't say "no" to a suggested action, apply a modifier. The 2nd level barbarian in the group wants to attempt a graceful backflip dismount from the rope he is hanging from... "Heck, that pansy thief just did it, right?"
Don't tell him he can't try it, just apply a -10 modifier to his dex check. It's very unlikely that he will succesfully complete the action, but certainly not impossible.
If you are running the game, your monk CAN use a quarterstaff... he just has a base THACO of 20 with it, regardless of level, and has to swing at a -5 penalty. Again, not very likely that he'll hit anything, but not impossible. In our games, a roll of a 1 to hit always means one of the following(hit self/hit ally/drop weapon/break weapon) Perhaps with the monk using a weapon he shouldn't be able to use, this "critical miss" range could be 1-3 instead of just 1.

------------------
Lil alurl velve zhah lil velkyn uss...
<^><^><^><^><^><^><^><^>
Your friendly neighborhood
Drow in Sunglasses,
Jhareth of house Noquar

Rhyfelwyr · Post by **Rhyfelwyr** » Thu Mar 01, 2001 5:19 pm

It says in the forward of the DM manual, at least the old version I have, and it states that all 'rules' contained herein are guidlines to follow. A DM is the one who makes the game. I used to have an old DM screen with a post it that said "my world, and welcome to it!"

TheHellion · Post by **TheHellion** » Thu Mar 01, 2001 5:33 pm

I agree that the second edition AD&D rules can be pretty restrictive, and indeed even flawed at times, but your example doesn't express this at all. The monk in BG2 is a 3rd edition class, converted to 2nd edition solely for the game. The folks at Black Isle decided what restrictions applied and didn't. There's a 2nd edition monk as well, but he was completely different from the monk we see here, and even that one could use a staff. Go figure.

two · Post by **two** » Thu Mar 01, 2001 6:18 pm

Originally posted by TheHellion:
I agree that the second edition AD&D rules can be pretty restrictive, and indeed even flawed at times, but your example doesn't express this at all. The monk in BG2 is a 3rd edition class, converted to 2nd edition solely for the game. The folks at Black Isle decided what restrictions applied and didn't. There's a 2nd edition monk as well, but he was completely different from the monk we see here, and even that one could use a staff. Go figure.

Sorry this was a bad example. Replace quarterstaff with heavy crossbow. Or let a mage slip into leather armor. Nope -- what's up with that anyway? Can't cast with the smell of greased leather in his nose?

I think I have assumed here that everyone sees the limitations of AD&D and laughs at some of its silliness. That does not mean it's a bad game, just somewhat silly!

Another example of arbitrariness is the whole stupid "memorize spells every morning/forget them after casting." It's just ridiculous and could have been implemented in a much better way (spell points, or hell if you know a spell and want to cast it cast it!).

Another obvious siliness is the whole "Cleric can't use edged weapons" which is fine for game play but completely arbitrary. c'mon smile, I know you can do it, it's actually very funny if you think about it.

I'm not even getting into more fundamental giggles like dual-classing. One day you can't remember any of those theiving skills you worked on for ten years, then the next day you gain a level for your fighter (putting you over the thief level) and POOF! they all come back in a rush. Can't you see it? I bet that is like a holy revelation or soemthing. Giggle. You just gotta.

Drakron Du´Dark · Post by **Drakron Du´Dark** » Thu Mar 01, 2001 6:41 pm

@Two, First thing D&D were made to several people to play in a group, letting the characters be able to do anything, were any armor use any weapon without restitions would make a member with "I-can-do-everthing-so-I-really-dont-need-you-for-anything" character and that would end the group, second, this is not diablo, mages have very powerful spells but the system that you are proposing is wrong, for a good point there must be a bad point, same thing with clerics, they have spells and can use armor so there a balance, so it limit the weapon that they can use.

------------------
ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US
Cats, 2101.

two · Post by **two** » Thu Mar 01, 2001 6:56 pm

Originally posted by Drakron Du´Dark:
@Two, First thing D&D were made to several people to play in a group, letting the characters be able to do anything, were any armor use any weapon without restitions would make a member with "I-can-do-everthing-so-I-really-dont-need-you-for-anything" character and that would end the group, second, this is not diablo, mages have very powerful spells but the system that you are proposing is wrong, for a good point there must be a bad point, same thing with clerics, they have spells and can use armor so there a balance, so it limit the weapon that they can use.

Dude, wait, I never meant what you are saying AT ALL. I never said all characters can/should do everything, just that there are other more elegent ways to balance things out! I don't want spell casters to cast any/every spell they want all the time, but what about a spell point system where a 10th level mage gets 25 points to cast any spell he has learned: 25 magic missles. Or 12.5 webs (2nd level). Or 8.3 fireballs (3rd level). Or etc. It is limited, balanced, but gets rid of the goofy "forgets spells every day" rule. It is also more flexible and probably fun.

Similarly to develop a character you get 20 development points at level 1. learning spell casting takes 15 (lots of time). learning to wear armor and fight 5. use a weapon ok -5. Better - 7. Very well - 10. Etc. It's easy to make a system where if you are good at one thing (spells) you can't be good at another (wearing armor, melee) or you can balance it out (ok spells, ok melee). ETc. Use your imagination.

I'm just pointing out that there are lots of ways to make a balanced, fun, exciting game that don't involve egregiously arbitrary rules. Hell why am I explaining go look at Rolemaster (very old), Gurps (old), etc. see for yourself.

I'm not saying AD&D ain't fun but it's also funny at times! Sheesh.

TheHellion · Post by **TheHellion** » Thu Mar 01, 2001 8:42 pm

Originally posted by two
Dude, wait, I never meant what you are saying AT ALL. I never said all characters can/should do everything, just that there are other more elegent ways to balance things out! I don't want spell casters to cast any/every spell they want all the time, but what about a spell point system where a 10th level mage gets 25 points to cast any spell he has learned: 25 magic missles. Or 12.5 webs (2nd level). Or 8.3 fireballs (3rd level). Or etc. It is limited, balanced, but gets rid of the goofy "forgets spells every day" rule. It is also more flexible and probably fun.

Similarly to develop a character you get 20 development points at level 1. learning spell casting takes 15 (lots of time). learning to wear armor and fight 5. use a weapon ok -5. Better - 7. Very well - 10. Etc. It's easy to make a system where if you are good at one thing (spells) you can't be good at another (wearing armor, melee) or you can balance it out (ok spells, ok melee). ETc. Use your imagination.

I'm just pointing out that there are lots of ways to make a balanced, fun, exciting game that don't involve egregiously arbitrary rules. Hell why am I explaining go look at Rolemaster (very old), Gurps (old), etc. see for yourself.

I'm not saying AD&D ain't fun but it's also funny at times! Sheesh.

Hahaha! Defensive shields at maximum. Don't mind us, we're just a tad edgy when it comes to our precious D&D.

You're right, some of the AD&D rules are bizarre. Things like druid weapon restrictions I can understand, but it's a cultural thing, not a "physical" limitation. I guess 2nd edition AD&D is kind of an acquired taste. One of the reasons I look so forward to the Pool of Radiance sequel is because it uses the 3rd edition rules set. Admittedly, I expected 3rd edition to be a cop out on WotC's part, but actually ended up really liking them. Mainly because they remain true to the AD&D system, but find work-arounds for all those "silly" restrictions.

Drakron Du´Dark · Post by **Drakron Du´Dark** » Thu Mar 01, 2001 9:54 pm

Yes, a mage can wear armor, but the heavier that is the bigger the chance that the spell fails....

------------------
ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US
Cats, 2101.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Fri Mar 02, 2001 6:34 am

Originally posted by two:
I don't want spell casters to cast any/every spell they want all the time, but what about a spell point system where a 10th level mage gets 25 points to cast any spell he has learned: 25 magic missles. Or 12.5 webs (2nd level). Or 8.3 fireballs (3rd level).

A very nice spell point system was introduced in the AD&D 2nd Edition Player's Options: Spells and Magic. In fact, I like that spell point system so much, that my co-DM and I are going to implement it when we transition to 3rd edition (probably be closer to edition 3.1 when we've converted everything over).

As far as a mage using armor or a monk with a heavy crossbow, or even a cleric wielding a 2 handed sword, none of this is considered "impossible" in the D&D world. In fact, the DMG (Dungeon Master's Guide) encourages creative thinking and suggests that DMs allow flexibility without necessarily throwing out the rules.

In the cleric example, perhaps the cleric worships the God of War. A bladed weapon might be allowed.

In the mage example, you could allow the mage to wear the armor (with penalties of some sort), but not necessarily allow him to cast spells.

For the monk, you can allow him to use the crossbow, but not necessarily allow him to get proficient. If he does get proficient, it may cost double the number of slots (or CPs in the Player's Option system).

Point is that a good DM won't disallow most things (with some exceptions of course). A Paladin wanting a nightmare as a mount would be disallowed (don't laugh, a player in my group did ask for this). However, don't expect to be able to things outside of your class's abilities without some sort of penalty.

two · Post by **two** » Fri Mar 02, 2001 8:22 am

Originally posted by Krom:

In the cleric example, perhaps the cleric worships the God of War. A bladed weapon might be allowed.

In the mage example, you could allow the mage to wear the armor (with penalties of some sort), but not necessarily allow him to cast spells.

For the monk, you can allow him to use the crossbow, but not necessarily allow him to get proficient. If he does get proficient, it may cost double the number of slots (or CPs in the Player's Option system).

I think people are missing the point, or I'm the only one that sees this as humerous. Yes, it could very well be me.

Hey guys, isn't it kinda funny that your 23rd level cleric is banned from using a simple dagger? What, the Gods are OK with you bashing a guy's head in with a club but a dagger is immoral?

Ditto with the battle-scarred monk, a super-highly-trained hero who fumbles with a crossbow? Why SHOULD he get a negative greater than that of a 1st level fighter?

Sure a good DM will allow these things -- with penalties, etc. -- but the POINT is that making it tough for a cleric to use a dagger is arbitrary and kinda funny/silly. You know? All I'm saying is that AD&D has some arbitrary rules put in just for game balance. And some crack me up.

Just like the dual-classed thing, when you suddenly "remember" your former life and get all the skills back. It's funny.

The Outsider · Post by **The Outsider** » Fri Mar 02, 2001 4:40 pm

I think the thing that I find most ridiculous is the fact that your party can actually join combat while carrying 200 lbs of cr*p in their packs. C'mon, make them drop their gear when they move to attack.
This would be even more fun for thieves- you could just hide in the shadows until the enemies were occupied with the tanks, then just nick all their gear. <snicker>
Definitely would add to the roleplaying aspect of it. I've never been able to take any character too seriously who is running around, instead of sinking ankle-deep in concrete because of the 200lbs of illithium they're hefting around.

Gruntboy · Post by **Gruntboy** » Fri Mar 02, 2001 4:56 pm

Outsider - good point, drinking potions and stuff in the middle of melee is pretty whacky too. Even switching quick weapons would be risky (but not impossible). At least they've stopped armour changes, and holding a ranged weapon in melee gives a bonus to attackers.

geh4th · Post by **geh4th** » Sat Mar 03, 2001 12:28 am

Two, the development point system you describe sounds an awful lot like Rolemaster.

I abandoned AD&D many many years ago in favor of Rolemaster for exactly the arbitrary silliness of AD&D's rules. What if I am a fighter and want to learn how to disarm traps (without walking into it delberately

)? Nope, only THIEVES can learn THAT....but what if I want to learn a little magic? NOPE, ya gotta be a mage for that. Or you have to "forget" how to be a fighter for a Looong time (to dual class, Two's example).

Or how about this one: I am a mighty fighter, with 120 hit points. I can be hit and damaged, but I KNOW for CERTAIN that I cannot be killed in a single physical blow except by the most incredible of feats or most powerful of magics. And I fear no wound; I do not bleed, bruise, or suffer broken bones from the worst of weapons (with the occasional almost unique magical weapons). Not until I take that LAST, magical hit point does ANYTHING happen. Then, when that HP goes, wham, I am DEAD.

RM was always appealing to me because it has no silly, pointless, arbitrary restrictions on what you can do, and EVERY character must be aware that a sword CAN kill you, even in the hands of a novice. The most lowly creature CAN kill a powerful lord if he gets VERY lucky (or the lord is careless ans does not defend himself); knowing an opponent cannot hurt you is knowing invincibility. It's also knowing boredom.

Remember Boromir? What do you think he was, 15th, maybe 20th level? He was killed by ORCS. Do you think ANY fighter in AD&D can even IMAGINE getting killed by an orc? Most Fighters would wade into combat with 50 orcs with no fear.

The only complaint I have EVER heard against RM is that it is complex. I know this system like the back of my hand. With a GM that knows what he is doing, it is the best system I've ever seen.

Of course, that being said, here I am playing AD&D with BG2. I thoroughly enjoy this game, and can live with the shortcomings of the system in order to play the game. But it could always be better, IMHO.

------------------
"If you prefer, you could say EXPERT treasure hunter!"
--Gandalf the Grey, the Hobbit

Sir Percy · Post by **Sir Percy** » Sun Mar 04, 2001 9:32 pm

Originally posted by geh4th:

I abandoned AD&D many many years ago in favor of Rolemaster for exactly the arbitrary silliness of AD&D's rules.

I'm with you there.

I still vividly remember my first ever game under Rolemaster : walking up to a kobold expecting to smear him and instead, the Kobold achieved some monumentally lucky critical hit with an arrow which forced me to roll up a new character.

Wow! I was very impressed. That really brought the game to life and AD&D was never playable for me after that.

Rail · Post by **Rail** » Sun Mar 04, 2001 9:50 pm

Originally posted by Sir Percy:

I'm with you there.

I still vividly remember my first ever game under Rolemaster : walking up to a kobold expecting to smear him and instead, the Kobold achieved some monumentally lucky critical hit with an arrow which forced me to roll up a new character.

Wow! I was very impressed. That really brought the game to life and AD&D was never playable for me after that.

Funny. That's exactly what I didn't like about other systems. While AD&D wasn't a perfect system, it was more about the story. The other systems focus on realism too much. Stories aren't designed to be perfectly realistic.

How realistic would it be if Arnold Schwartzenegger (sp?) was killed in the first gunfight of a movie by a lucky shot from a nobody? Sure, it could be realistic, for all that's worth. Lame movie. (while it would be funny to see just once from Hollywood

) Many other RPG systems focus too much on realism, and rarely did I find the character development and player-character attachment that was found among AD&D players.

In addition, many systems had too many rolls and became cumbersome. I don't care where I hit him. Let the imagination of the players or DM figure out that quickly. Too many rolls bog down the system. Call a hit a hit and get on with the storyline.

I agree, there are plenty of lame rules to be found in AD&D. Dual classing and forgetting your other skills is lame, a classically unexplainable rule, and as a former DM, that guideline was thrown out. Be flexible with the books and their guidelines (rules). The game's in the imagination, not the books. I think the AD&D system is great, though not perfect. It promotes character development, allows characters to occasionally do something outstanding or phenomenal. While there is admittedly a bit of suspended realism, it makes for great stories. And RPGs should be about stories and characters.

two · Post by **two** » Mon Mar 05, 2001 8:46 am

Originally posted by geh4th:
Two, the development point system you describe sounds an awful lot like Rolemaster.

I abandoned AD&D many many years ago in favor of Rolemaster for exactly the arbitrary silliness of AD&D's rules. What if I am a fighter and want to learn how to disarm traps (without walking into it delberately )? Nope, only THIEVES can learn THAT....but what if I want to learn a little magic? NOPE, ya gotta be a mage for that. Or you have to "forget" how to be a fighter for a Looong time (to dual class, Two's example).

Or how about this one: I am a mighty fighter, with 120 hit points. I can be hit and damaged, but I KNOW for CERTAIN that I cannot be killed in a single physical blow except by the most incredible of feats or most powerful of magics. And I fear no wound; I do not bleed, bruise, or suffer broken bones from the worst of weapons (with the occasional almost unique magical weapons). Not until I take that LAST, magical hit point does ANYTHING happen. Then, when that HP goes, wham, I am DEAD.

RM was always appealing to me because it has no silly, pointless, arbitrary restrictions on what you can do, and EVERY character must be aware that a sword CAN kill you, even in the hands of a novice. The most lowly creature CAN kill a powerful lord if he gets VERY lucky (or the lord is careless ans does not defend himself); knowing an opponent cannot hurt you is knowing invincibility. It's also knowing boredom.

Remember Boromir? What do you think he was, 15th, maybe 20th level? He was killed by ORCS. Do you think ANY fighter in AD&D can even IMAGINE getting killed by an orc? Most Fighters would wade into combat with 50 orcs with no fear.

The only complaint I have EVER heard against RM is that it is complex. I know this system like the back of my hand. With a GM that knows what he is doing, it is the best system I've ever seen.

Of course, that being said, here I am playing AD&D with BG2. I thoroughly enjoy this game, and can live with the shortcomings of the system in order to play the game. But it could always be better, IMHO.

Whew! I'm not crazy! I was getting worried there! Others agree, well, at least one person.

I used to play Rolemaster as well and it was always fun. I never could understand the "complexity" complaint; AD&D rule manuals were always 5 times longer than Rolemaster's! And combat in AD&D could go on forever...and ever... I think most people learned AD&D when young and tried Rolemaster when they were older, and it just seemed harder...

As I recall, a lot of the really detailed stuff in Rolemaster was done for you, buried in charts. For example, the 25 or so most typical weapons each had a chart listing their damage vs. various armour classes. This was a easy way to modify weapons vs. armor without plus/minus bonuses to each roll (for each armor class). For example, the "whip" table had pretty decent damage vs. unarmored, but when it was vs. plate mail almost no damage, which makes sense. Ditto with darts, good vs. leather but sucky vs. armor. Opposite story with Falchion/scimitar, actually better vs. heavy plate than a longsword/2handed sword. Anyway Rolemaster did all the calcuation for you in the tables, that was nice, you just read the result.

Clearly Rolemaster is much more flexible than AD&D, could encompass more complex worlds. As you said, looking at LOTR, Gandalf is a "bad" AD&D mage -- heck, he whacks away with a nice sword when he has to! And dislikes even lighting a fire with magic! AD&D was targeted towards Genre fiction as a later poster says; typical hack-n-slash movies, fantasy novels, etc. In which fighters are big and dumb, wizrds and smart and scrawny, thieves are tricky and back-stabby. This does not make AD&D less fun, but it is less flexible.

As for the infamous rolemaster critical hits: this is the ONLY way to get truly heroic stories out of an RPG session, for example the time when the hassled illusionist-type, in the middle of a battle that saw 3 companions already unconscious and the last about to go down, picks up a quarterstaff, screams, attacks the ogre, and rolls 96+99+95 crushing its skull in. A fluke? Yes. Does it make for a great night of playing? Yes. And he told that damn story every day for months...

whitelight666 · Post by **whitelight666** » Mon Mar 05, 2001 9:45 am

the thing that turned me off originally about ADnD was that it had so much source material that you had to buy. Although i havn't played rolemaster, i think that the flexibility of ADnD is there as well, you simply need to cut through all the red tape.
to use two's example of the high cleric not using a simple knife/only blunt weapons, but if you read through the rules a bit, you found that really only the run of the mill clerics were forced to use blunt weaps, while specialty priests of different gods had their own individual weapons sets related to their gods. so, wanna use that knife? worship a god of hunters travelers. Always wanted a priest with a whip? The tortureres god awaits you.

the flexibility of dnd was there, it just required a lot more work to set up/source material to reference.

Giles the Sorcerer · Post by **Giles the Sorcerer** » Mon Mar 05, 2001 11:26 pm

Heh, it may be a good adventure for the party to get fluky rolls, but it is no fun when some pissant kobold rolls 99-96-98 or whatever crushing in your characters skull.

Any competent game designer knows, let the player win unless they are incompetent. Games are supposed to be fun above all else, not realistic.

piss off an amazingly skilled Assasin and odds are you will get your throat slit in the night. is it "realistic?" yes. is it FUN? no

Sotamom · Post by **Sotamom** » Tue Mar 06, 2001 5:07 am

Priests only using blunt weapons I think stems from an English priest who went into battle around the time of Henry V who would not use edged weapons so as not to offend God by drawing blood. Internal bleeding I suppose was OK.
When I came across Rolemaster I stopped playing pnp D&D for good. Mages are so weak @ low levels, not much fun casting two magic missiles in the first battle after breakfast & then having to sit out of the rest until everyone else is ready to sleep. Can't hit anything, too easy to be hit & one touch hit a thistle & you're out of hits.
Rolemaster is not all about criticals (although some of the critical descriptions were a giggle & did add to the combat feel) & I found it much better for the role playing aspect. The classes were not just variants on 4 themes. Magic users could wear any armour, but moving in it was a skill that was expensive for them to obtain & carrying anything metal interfered with the casting ability, the more metal the higher the interference. Therefore a pure mage could wear field plate, but it would be unlikely he would ever be able to do anything but fall flat on his face & would be most likely to explode his own head if he tried casting even the simplest of spells. Hybrid magic user characters would find it cheaper to get movement skills in leather armour but the metal problem still applies (this includes your knife & fork & your gp's in your backpack) & magic skills are more expensive.
I played for a long time with a Warlock, wearing a reinforced leather coat as armour & wielding a 2-handed sword. His casting abilities were reasonable & he at least stood a chance in a fight.
But then I came across GURPS, this is a fantastic system aimed not at killing stuff & collecting pretty magic baubles, but at role play. Your character can be & do anything with no restriction, but at a cost. If you want to cast magic, that's an expensive advantage you have to buy at the start (& you'll probably need to put a disadvantage on to claw back some development points)& each spell is a skill which competes for the points you want to put into other skills & also to up your stats. A character with high magic ability would not have very many other skills.
This was one of the most immersive pnp systems I have played, by the time you have created your character you already have a feel for them & if at some point in the future you want to learn a completely different skill then you can, so long as you have some development points spare.
There is no such thing as levels, a character gradually improves with more & better skills.
Playing GURPS is completely different to D&D, D&D is easier to make into a computer game because it has strict rules although I would love to see someone do something like Neverwinter Nights based around GURPS.