Forgotten rules tidbits

Discussion of OOP 1st & 2nd Edition products and rules, ie TSR AD&D material.

Moderators: Thorn Blackstone, Halaster Blackcloak

Post Reply
User avatar
Halaster Blackcloak
Lord of Undermountain
Lord of Undermountain
Posts: 3973
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 12:47 am
Location: Undermountain
Contact:

Forgotten rules tidbits

Post by Halaster Blackcloak »

I've been going through the old rule books, just to get back in swing with the BIP Project. I'm finding lots of forgotten tidbits that most people seem to have forgotten over the years (this based on replies to various discussions online over the years).

I found one that was really cool. On pg. 70 of the 1E DMG, it says:

Magically Sleeping or Held Opponents: If a general melee is in progress, and the attacker is subject to enemy attacks, then these opponents are automatically struck by any attack to which they would normally be subject, and the maximum damage possible according to weapon type is inflicted each time such an opponent is so attacked. The number of attacks or attack routines possible against such opponents is twice the number normally allowed in a round. Otherwise, such opponents may be automatically slain...

Ouch!

So if there is no active combat going on, the attacker can kill the sleeping/held opponent outright. Check. Everyone seems to remember that. However, the other part seems to have been forgotten at every forum in which it's ever been discussed, that I can recall.

The sleeping/held opponent, when being attacked by an attacker who is himself subject to attack (ie melee is still active), is automatically hit, the weapon automatically does max damage, and the attacker gets twice as many attacks as normal! Wow! This is just vicious!

A fighter who normally gets two attacks per round with his two-handed sword now gets four attacks that automatically hit for 40 pt damage in one round! Yikes! :shock:

A clay golem that is hasting itself that round gets 4 attacks, doing 120 pt damage that round! :shock:

An iron golem would do 160 pt damage! :shock: :shock:

Oh, I just gotta remember to use this rule, I really do! :twisted:

Anyone else find some forgotten rules that are interesting?
The Back In Print Project - Where AD&D Lives Forever!

Image
User avatar
Beowulf
Citizen of Undermountain
Citizen of Undermountain
Posts: 329
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 12:04 am

Post by Beowulf »

Yeah, that's widely considered a "bad" or imbalanced spell. On some level I have to agree- it's a 1st level near-equivalent of a Death Spell.
User avatar
Halaster Blackcloak
Lord of Undermountain
Lord of Undermountain
Posts: 3973
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 12:47 am
Location: Undermountain
Contact:

Post by Halaster Blackcloak »

Beowulf, one day you and I are going to discover something we agree on. :)

Today isn't that day! :wink: :lol:

I've never seen either the sleep or hold spell as bad, broken, overpowered, etc.

First, sleep only affects creatures within a 30' circle. In ambush and outdoor combat, sleep will not affect more than usually 1-2 opponents at most. It only affects 2d4 HD of monsters in any case, and no monsters with 4+ HD. If we consider NPC levels as HD, then very early on, the spell becomes virtually worthless (ie it won't affect anyone over 4th level). I'd hardly call that "imbalanced". And of course, there's the saving throw to negate it. Also, if slapping or wounding awakens a sleeping character, then the attacker gets just one round to attack, since it takes just one round to come out of it once hit.

Likewise, hold person spells are not imbalanced in my eyes. First, it only affects bipedal humanoids (no undead, golems, griffons, etc). It only affects 1-4 people, and even then it only works in a 20' cube. Likewise, it offers a saving throw, though there are penalties if you center it on a lesser number of people. Of course, that's balanced by the Wisdom bonus to the saving throw.

But this spell is even less crippling than sleep, the difference being that a held being can still use abilities that do not require speech or movement. Psionicists are still deadly and able to fight while being held, for example. An NPC with winged boots can still fly away, since that magic item requires only mental desire to activate it. An NPC wearing eyes of charming can likewise charm his attacker. An wearing a helm of telepathy can likewise use a suggestion against his attacker even if he's held at the time. A held being wearing a periapt of wound closure is pretty well protected. A robe of scintillating colors is likewise effective while being held. Same for a robe of stars. And so on and so forth.

I guess I'm just not seeing how it's bad or unbalanced, especially when opponents can just a easily use those spells against the PCs. :twisted:
The Back In Print Project - Where AD&D Lives Forever!

Image
User avatar
Varl
Scribe of Tomes
Scribe of Tomes
Posts: 313
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 7:55 am
Location: Mount Vernon, Washington

Post by Varl »

Halaster Blackcloak wrote:I guess I'm just not seeing how it's bad or unbalanced, especially when opponents can just a easily use those spells against the PCs. :twisted:
I don't think he's referring to the spells themselves, Halaster, more to the incapacitation and vulnerability of characters or creatures caught by such spells. When someone or something is held or asleep, it's pretty hard to explain away how the victim could not be taken out by whatever means desired. I think the helpless factor should make those two spells much higher level than I think the designers intended.

If I ever did up their levels closer to what they should be, I'd probably make Sleep 3rd level and Hold Person 4th.
Tired of clone MMOs? So are we!
http://trialsofascension.com/
User avatar
Mira
Citizen of Undermountain
Citizen of Undermountain
Posts: 202
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 7:50 am

Post by Mira »

Hold gets a save, Sleep does not. But otherwise, it does have those limitations.

Still, a single Sleep spell could be quite deadly to a group of low levels, particularly 1st level adventurers!

I don't think the damage part is what's deadly, it's the auto-kill, you really can't count that as lesser :)

It's an exceptionally strong spell (though Color Spray is also pretty potent) at low levels, but that's also the only spell the caster will get to cast at 1st level. So after it's cast, the mage is pretty helpless.

Mira (True beauty is on the inside, where no one will ever see it)
User avatar
Beowulf
Citizen of Undermountain
Citizen of Undermountain
Posts: 329
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 12:04 am

Post by Beowulf »

I don't think we're that far apart on the issue, Hal! :) Yeah, obviously the 4th level max keeps it in check- I was more referring to low level characters.

Now, if you decided to relive the 80's when you retire instead of the 70's we'd really be gettin' somewhere! :P
User avatar
Halaster Blackcloak
Lord of Undermountain
Lord of Undermountain
Posts: 3973
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 12:47 am
Location: Undermountain
Contact:

Post by Halaster Blackcloak »

Varl wrote:
When someone or something is held or asleep, it's pretty hard to explain away how the victim could not be taken out by whatever means desired.
I think it sort of makes sense in that if he's trying to do it during combat, he's having to guard his back, avoid friends who are trying to help his victim, etc. He's distracted, he's pre-occupied, so it isn't so automatic. I can buy that.

Mira wrote:
Hold gets a save, Sleep does not. But otherwise, it does have those limitations.
Yikes! You're right! I could swear I remember reading a Sage Advice that said sleep gets a saving throw, and that the "none" (for saving throws) was a typo. Maybe I'm thinking of something else?
Still, a single Sleep spell could be quite deadly to a group of low levels, particularly 1st level adventurers!
Or their opponents. :wink:
I don't think the damage part is what's deadly, it's the auto-kill, you really can't count that as lesser
True. I think it makes sense though. If you can't resist, then auto-kills are sensible.

Beowulf wrote:
I don't think we're that far apart on the issue, Hal! Smile Yeah, obviously the 4th level max keeps it in check- I was more referring to low level characters.
I see your point. Of course, it also makes 1st level wizards in the party pretty potent, when so many people claim that 1st level wizards are worthless.
Now, if you decided to relive the 80's when you retire instead of the 70's we'd really be gettin' somewhere!
Well, if I have the time left over, I don't see why not! :wink: :lol:
The Back In Print Project - Where AD&D Lives Forever!

Image
garhkal
Citizen of Undermountain
Citizen of Undermountain
Posts: 1521
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 9:40 pm

Post by garhkal »

Beowulf wrote:Yeah, that's widely considered a "bad" or imbalanced spell. On some level I have to agree- it's a 1st level near-equivalent of a Death Spell.
Maybe, but remember a simple slap can wake a person sleeped by the spell. OR kicking them.. As to held ones, cannot argue with that part.
Yikes! You're right! I could swear I remember reading a Sage Advice that said sleep gets a saving throw, and that the "none" (for saving throws) was a typo. Maybe I'm thinking of something else?
Nope. As long as you meet the HD requirements, you are affected if the spell has HD left to hit..
It's not who you kill, but how they die!
garhkal
Citizen of Undermountain
Citizen of Undermountain
Posts: 1521
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 9:40 pm

Post by garhkal »

Beowulf wrote:Yeah, that's widely considered a "bad" or imbalanced spell. On some level I have to agree- it's a 1st level near-equivalent of a Death Spell.
Maybe, but remember a simple slap can wake a person sleeped by the spell. OR kicking them.. As to held ones, cannot argue with that part.
Yikes! You're right! I could swear I remember reading a Sage Advice that said sleep gets a saving throw, and that the "none" (for saving throws) was a typo. Maybe I'm thinking of something else?
Nope. As long as you meet the HD requirements, you are affected if the spell has HD left to hit..
It's not who you kill, but how they die!
Post Reply