Nikosandros
Golden Procrastinator
Since I first read that example, I've always assumed that the "transcription" just omitted the save for brevity.
D&D 2E Let's Read the AD&D 2nd Edition PHB+DMG!
Mannahnin
Scion of Murgen (He/Him)
Yeah, I assumed so too, but given the length of the thing overall and how detailed it is, I still think it should have been mentioned.
Bayushi_seikuro
Hero
I don't know. It appears the DM just kills the PC: "whereupon the DM judges that the other 3 (ghouls) would rend him to bits."
Bedrockgames
Legend
I used it for years
We used it at first, then quickly switched to 3d6 arrange as you like and eventually landed on 4d6 drop lowest and arrange as you like which is how we played most of our campaigns.
Iosue
Legend
Here's my problem with the 1st Ed. DMG example of play.
The secret door is 10' x 10' wide and swings inward. Therefore any ghouls on the other side had to be 10' away, or they would have been smashed by the door. Not mentioned in the example but clear from sample dungeon map is that it opens into a 10' wide corridor that goes straight for 70' feet. Where were the ghouls when he opened the door? The gnome has 60' infravision, and is looking right down the corridor. Well, maybe they're in the area 70' feet away, and use a turn to silently approach the gnome, who doesn't notice them at all. It sounds a bit contrived, but let's just go ahead and grant all that. The gnome fails his surprise roll and gets attacked. We'll even assume there's actually a saving throw that he failed.
The DM just goes, "Oh well, I guess that means he's rent to pieces and eaten." And party gets to do nothing while this happens. I know it's the Old Way, and it's Hardcore, and Pulls No Punches, and all that. But hear me out. Give the players a round do something, anything. Roll damage each round until the gnome's at 0 hp. Have one of the ghouls start pulling him back to their lair. Maybe, just maybe, don't unilaterally and horrifically kill off a character because they failed a surprise roll.
Chapter 2: Player Character Races
The introductory paragraphs point out that this does not refer to “race” in the real-world sense of the term, but rather to “a fantasy species for your character—human, elf, dwarf, gnome, half-elf or halfling.” It also wisely points out that while broad statements are used to describe the races in general, players are not bound by these generalities.
Then we look at the Minimum and Maximum Ability Scores. This is a section that’s gone under significant revision from 1st Edition. In 2nd Edition, characters as-rolled must fall within these ranges to be eligible to pick a particular race. Even if later Racial Ability Adjustments should adjust a score lower than the minimum listed here, the character can still be that race, but a racial bonus cannot be used to raise a score to the minimum,. This is not the case in 1st Ed., where the minimums are an absolute floor, but if a racial bonus should bump a score to the minimum, that race could be played.
The table detailing the minimums and maximums was heavily revised. For one, 1st Ed. split its minimums/maximums by gender. 2nd Edition does away with that, but also fiddles with the numbers. Dwarves, for example, have a lower minimum Con (11 instead of 12), but a higher maximum Cha (17 instead of 16). Elves get a lower minimum Dex, but a higher minimum Con. And many other small changes. Dwarves and Halflings are the only races with maximums of 17: in Dex and Cha for Dwarves, and Wis for Halflings; everyone else has a uniform maximum of 18.
Moving on the Racial Ability Adjustments. Continuing the change from 1st Edition, these bonuses can now raise your score beyond your racial maximum. One thing I didn’t notice when doing the ability scores is that, while each table when from 1-25, the PC range of stats, i.e., 3-18, in the ability bonus tables were in listed normally. Stats above or below that were shaded in blue. But, for those abilities that could receive racial bonuses: Con, Dex, and Int, the non-shaded range went up to 19, while those that could receive racial penalties; Cha, Con, Wis and Str, only the 1 was shaded blue. So it was entirely feasible, possibly even expected, to start with a 19 in your prime requisite, if you played a demihuman.
Very quickly, the Racial Ability Adjustments were:
Dwarf - +1 Con, -1 Cha
Elf - +1 Dex, -1 Con
Gnome - +1 Int, -1 Wisdom
Halfling - +1 Dex, -1 Str
Next, the chapter briefly touches on Class Restrictions and Level Limits. Details are left for the Classes chapter, but here they explain why there are Class Restrictions and Level Limits. The Watsonian reason given is that it reflects “the natural tendencies of the races (dwarves like war and fighting and dislike magic, etc.).” The Doyalist reason given after that is play balance. The human race gets only one special ability: they can be any class and have no level limits. Demihumans get their own special benefits, including the ability to multi-class, so their options are limited.
Coming to Languages, this was quite an eye-opener. There’s a blue shaded box touching on the use of the optional non-weapon proficiencies rule (if used, additional languages are bought with NWPs). But what surprised me is not languages were not automatically received. I came from Moldvay/Mentzer, where you knew Common, your native language, your alignment language, any additional languages your intelligence bonuses gave you right off the bat, and demihumans automatically got their additional class feature languages. Not so in 2e! Alignment languages are gone, which is good. Alignment languages have never been adequately explained or integrated into the fabric of D&D worlds.
But, further, characters start with only their native language. If they have additional languages from their Intelligence, demihumans can choose those from among the languages listed in the race description. For humans, if the DM decides, they can start with additional languages from their Int bonus, but otherwise they have to learn the additional languages as they adventure. How they learn is not explained outside of the optional proficiency rules.
The upshot of this, if played as written, is that languages are extremely limited. Even an Elf with an Int of 11 knows only two languages: Elf, and most probably (but not necessarily) Common.
How was it in 1st Ed.? Actually, similar, but not as stringent. Finding a native speaker and spending time with them was required to learn a language, but the languages demihumans knew were in addition to any they got from their Int bonus, not limited by it. Elves, for example, start already knowing elvish, gnomish, halfling, goblin, hobgoblin, orcish, gnoll and “the common tongunge of mankind.” Then 1 additional language for each Int point above 15.
I think of languages as a rather hidden support beam of exploratory play. Originally it tied heavily into the reaction roll (itself an unsung hero of exploration that has since fallen by the wayside). How any particular encounter, random or otherwise, might play out was influenced by the reaction roll. And how that reaction roll came out was influenced by whether you spoke the language of the other party.
But as this style of play was left behind as players pursued more cinematic, plot-driven adventures, the role of languages was accordingly diminished. Now they were largely lore dressing or background hooks. They seemed necessary to relay the scope of the world, and so they have never been taken out, even today. But they lost their specific use case.
It is not surprising then, that 2nd Ed. chose to reduce and downplay them in favor of the more developed and specific non-weapon proficiency system (optional though they make it).
Next up: Dwarves, Elves, and Gnomes, oh my!
The secret door is 10' x 10' wide and swings inward. Therefore any ghouls on the other side had to be 10' away, or they would have been smashed by the door. Not mentioned in the example but clear from sample dungeon map is that it opens into a 10' wide corridor that goes straight for 70' feet. Where were the ghouls when he opened the door? The gnome has 60' infravision, and is looking right down the corridor. Well, maybe they're in the area 70' feet away, and use a turn to silently approach the gnome, who doesn't notice them at all. It sounds a bit contrived, but let's just go ahead and grant all that. The gnome fails his surprise roll and gets attacked. We'll even assume there's actually a saving throw that he failed.
The DM just goes, "Oh well, I guess that means he's rent to pieces and eaten." And party gets to do nothing while this happens. I know it's the Old Way, and it's Hardcore, and Pulls No Punches, and all that. But hear me out. Give the players a round do something, anything. Roll damage each round until the gnome's at 0 hp. Have one of the ghouls start pulling him back to their lair. Maybe, just maybe, don't unilaterally and horrifically kill off a character because they failed a surprise roll.
Chapter 2: Player Character Races
The introductory paragraphs point out that this does not refer to “race” in the real-world sense of the term, but rather to “a fantasy species for your character—human, elf, dwarf, gnome, half-elf or halfling.” It also wisely points out that while broad statements are used to describe the races in general, players are not bound by these generalities.
Then we look at the Minimum and Maximum Ability Scores. This is a section that’s gone under significant revision from 1st Edition. In 2nd Edition, characters as-rolled must fall within these ranges to be eligible to pick a particular race. Even if later Racial Ability Adjustments should adjust a score lower than the minimum listed here, the character can still be that race, but a racial bonus cannot be used to raise a score to the minimum,. This is not the case in 1st Ed., where the minimums are an absolute floor, but if a racial bonus should bump a score to the minimum, that race could be played.
The table detailing the minimums and maximums was heavily revised. For one, 1st Ed. split its minimums/maximums by gender. 2nd Edition does away with that, but also fiddles with the numbers. Dwarves, for example, have a lower minimum Con (11 instead of 12), but a higher maximum Cha (17 instead of 16). Elves get a lower minimum Dex, but a higher minimum Con. And many other small changes. Dwarves and Halflings are the only races with maximums of 17: in Dex and Cha for Dwarves, and Wis for Halflings; everyone else has a uniform maximum of 18.
Moving on the Racial Ability Adjustments. Continuing the change from 1st Edition, these bonuses can now raise your score beyond your racial maximum. One thing I didn’t notice when doing the ability scores is that, while each table when from 1-25, the PC range of stats, i.e., 3-18, in the ability bonus tables were in listed normally. Stats above or below that were shaded in blue. But, for those abilities that could receive racial bonuses: Con, Dex, and Int, the non-shaded range went up to 19, while those that could receive racial penalties; Cha, Con, Wis and Str, only the 1 was shaded blue. So it was entirely feasible, possibly even expected, to start with a 19 in your prime requisite, if you played a demihuman.
Very quickly, the Racial Ability Adjustments were:
Dwarf - +1 Con, -1 Cha
Elf - +1 Dex, -1 Con
Gnome - +1 Int, -1 Wisdom
Halfling - +1 Dex, -1 Str
Next, the chapter briefly touches on Class Restrictions and Level Limits. Details are left for the Classes chapter, but here they explain why there are Class Restrictions and Level Limits. The Watsonian reason given is that it reflects “the natural tendencies of the races (dwarves like war and fighting and dislike magic, etc.).” The Doyalist reason given after that is play balance. The human race gets only one special ability: they can be any class and have no level limits. Demihumans get their own special benefits, including the ability to multi-class, so their options are limited.
Coming to Languages, this was quite an eye-opener. There’s a blue shaded box touching on the use of the optional non-weapon proficiencies rule (if used, additional languages are bought with NWPs). But what surprised me is not languages were not automatically received. I came from Moldvay/Mentzer, where you knew Common, your native language, your alignment language, any additional languages your intelligence bonuses gave you right off the bat, and demihumans automatically got their additional class feature languages. Not so in 2e! Alignment languages are gone, which is good. Alignment languages have never been adequately explained or integrated into the fabric of D&D worlds.
But, further, characters start with only their native language. If they have additional languages from their Intelligence, demihumans can choose those from among the languages listed in the race description. For humans, if the DM decides, they can start with additional languages from their Int bonus, but otherwise they have to learn the additional languages as they adventure. How they learn is not explained outside of the optional proficiency rules.
The upshot of this, if played as written, is that languages are extremely limited. Even an Elf with an Int of 11 knows only two languages: Elf, and most probably (but not necessarily) Common.
How was it in 1st Ed.? Actually, similar, but not as stringent. Finding a native speaker and spending time with them was required to learn a language, but the languages demihumans knew were in addition to any they got from their Int bonus, not limited by it. Elves, for example, start already knowing elvish, gnomish, halfling, goblin, hobgoblin, orcish, gnoll and “the common tongunge of mankind.” Then 1 additional language for each Int point above 15.
I think of languages as a rather hidden support beam of exploratory play. Originally it tied heavily into the reaction roll (itself an unsung hero of exploration that has since fallen by the wayside). How any particular encounter, random or otherwise, might play out was influenced by the reaction roll. And how that reaction roll came out was influenced by whether you spoke the language of the other party.
But as this style of play was left behind as players pursued more cinematic, plot-driven adventures, the role of languages was accordingly diminished. Now they were largely lore dressing or background hooks. They seemed necessary to relay the scope of the world, and so they have never been taken out, even today. But they lost their specific use case.
It is not surprising then, that 2nd Ed. chose to reduce and downplay them in favor of the more developed and specific non-weapon proficiency system (optional though they make it).
Next up: Dwarves, Elves, and Gnomes, oh my!
This is a great point, and one I hadn't really considered, even as a fan of the B/X reaction roll. I'm really enjoying your posts!
Mannahnin
Scion of Murgen (He/Him)
Well, the party fails a surprise roll. So the three remaining ghouls have at least one free round of attacks, nine more attacks in total, against a paralyzed victim. Per page 67 attacks against a paralyzed target automatically hit. So he's looking at a bare minimum of 9 points of further damage, an average of 22.5. The example doesn't tell us levels, but the preamble refers to it as "the first dungeon adventure", which implies these are first level characters. How the ghouls got the drop on the gnome / were that close is a bit vague. Unfortunately the area key doesn't detail that 70' passage. It's not necessarily bare; it could have burial niches the ghouls were concealed in, for example. But that's speculation. Page 62 does say that encounter distance is normally 50 to 100 feet, but if Surprise is involved it's normally 10-30 feet. So I think the surprise roll is indicating in this case that the gnome was caught unawares, focused on getting out that rope and spike.
Ghouls are friggin' brutal in TSR D&D. Three attacks with paralysis and 2HD makes them one of the scariest things you can encounter at low level. I sometimes use a house rule that you only ever have to make 1 save per round against paralysis, rather than forcing people to make multiple saves if they get hit multiple times.
Agreed. The importance and potentially amusing value of languages was hit on an an early Dragon Magazine article, too, which wound up reprinted in Best of Dragon 1, where I first encountered it. Both it and the BECMI rules for languages made a significant impression on me as a newbie gamer.
TwoSix
Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer
Honestly, I think the Rath example is one of the most damaging pieces of text that's ever been included in an RPG. (Outside of like FATAL and stuff like that.) It codified into text the idea that caring about the game mechanics and the efficacy of your character is somehow wrong, and that real roleplayers should ignore mechanics and just focus on the character.
Bedrockgames
Legend
Nothing wrong with game mechanics, and someone playing an intentionally gimped character can be annoying. But if I am honest with myself, one of the reasons I really enjoyed 3d6 down the line, is that random generation method forced you think of interesting character concepts and also turned character creation itself into something of a game. I did years of 3E optimization, ran several campaigns like that, made a game that caters to martial characters who are optimized (a martial arts game), so I am not against optimization, or making effective characters. But I see a lot of people saying things (mostly on twitter and youtube) about how this 2E era approach is just about making ineffective characters who wreck the party dynamic. I think not all campaigns, not all systems need to be about maximizing the mechanics. You can also have a lot of fun being forced to find interesting characters who are the results of unlucky rolls. There is fun to the game beyond just who is best at combat or who is best at a given specialty. It doesn't always have to be about characters who are awesome at something
Similar Threads
