1E/2E/OD&D Reading AD&D 1e Again for the First Time

[Simon Atavax]

NOTE: I typed a long, detailed, beautifully written (IMHO ) post which I promptly deleted accidentally. I felt sick about it. So this post is a truncated version, which may actually be better in the end, since it will be shorter and more to the point. Brevity is the soul of wit, and all that.

***

I have decided to spend the next several months (perhaps as long as 10 months or so) reading, studying, and re-learning AD&D 1e. I first played the game as a kid way back in 1980/81 at the tender age of 10. Naturally, we ignored most of the rules and went crazy doing all manner of things that weren't by the RAW. But AD&D 1e (along with GAMMA WORLD 1e and Moldvay/Cook B/X D&D) has always held a strong, powerful, place in my heart.

Lately I've been reading the 1e AD&D DUNGEON MASTERS GUIDE (no apostrophe in 'masters' ) by the great E. Gary Gygax. As a 37-year-old veteran gamer I am truly reading this old book as if it were the first time; my adult eyes are seeing things my 10-year-old brain would never have noticed, and I am appreciating this magnificent book in ways that would have been beyond me as a kid.

So here's the plan: spend 6-10 months just taking my time, no rush, learning the rules and doing fun stuff like creating character record sheets, etc. Run a few sample combats with miniatures to get the "feel" of the system. Then get out there and try to recruit players.

Eeeeeek! I'm pumped.

Now, your folks' feedback is important to me (which is why I'm posting this rather than writing it in a diary ) so let me close with three questions:

1. The "one spell a day" thing about 1st and 2nd level magic-users has always bugged me about AD&D 1e (and for that matter, 2e). I just don't like the idea that the magic user has his one, lonely little spell which, once casted, renders him a weak, fleshy target until the following day. I remember that, as kids, we beefed up magic-users through a very nifty in-game process: the young 1st level apprentice was given a healthy heaping of scrolls and wands from his mentor as a "parting gift". "Use them wisely, and you may survive," he was told. Does anyone have any thoughts on this issue?

2. In combat, why would PCs ever declare their action to be "set weapons to receive a charge"? Because as I read the RAW, it seems that actions in combat are declared BEFORE knowing what the monsters are going to do (thus giving a more simultaneous feel to things). But wouldn't setting weapons to receive a charge be the kind of thing the PCs would only do in RESPONSE to seeing the monsters charge?

3. I can't envision how an assassin can work as a PC class. I remember reading an article David 'Zeb' Cook wrote in DRAGON to the same effect, that assassins, by their very nature, were counter-productive to the concept of a heroic, unified party. Does anyone have experience in making the evil assassin class workable within a party?

Anyway, that's it for now. Watch this thread for more developments as I read AD&D 1e again . . . for the first time.

[ExploderWizard]

Originally Posted by Simon Atavax

1. The "one spell a day" thing about 1st and 2nd level magic-users has always bugged me about AD&D 1e (and for that matter, 2e). I just don't like the idea that the magic user has his one, lonely little spell which, once casted, renders him a weak, fleshy target until the following day. I remember that, as kids, we beefed up magic-users through a very nifty in-game process: the young 1st level apprentice was given a healthy heaping of scrolls and wands from his mentor as a "parting gift". "Use them wisely, and you may survive," he was told. Does anyone have any thoughts on this issue?

A few scrolls and perhaps a wand with a few charges should work ok. Remember that an AD&D Sleep spell is very powerful encoounter-ending bit of magic. Having the magic user not toss that out several encounters per day is a balancing factor. The magic user must be comfortable with being weak at first in order to achieve power. AD&D is not a game with balance that must built in on a per round basis.

Originally Posted by Simon Atavax

2. In combat, why would PCs ever declare their action to be "set weapons to receive a charge"? Because as I read the RAW, it seems that actions in combat are declared BEFORE knowing what the monsters are going to do (thus giving a more simultaneous feel to things). But wouldn't setting weapons to receive a charge be the kind of thing the PCs would only do in RESPONSE to seeing the monsters charge?

A weapon set to receive charge can easily be used otherwise at short notice. The declaration of actions is primarily in place for spell casters.

Originally Posted by Simon Atavax

3. I can't envision how an assassin can work as a PC class. I remember reading an article David 'Zeb' Cook wrote in DRAGON to the same effect, that assassins, by their very nature, were counter-productive to the concept of a heroic, unified party. Does anyone have experience in making the evil assassin class workable within a party?

If I remember correctly that article was written in defense of a 2nd Edition decision to get rid of assassins as a class. It was a cop-out to the real reason that the class was removed-it was the same reason demons and devils became "fiends"

Anyhow, while I didn't agree with the reasons for removal at the time I can see why they should not be a class. IMHO its because thier abilities are too specialized to justify a separate class and nothing to do with counter productivity. Assassins skills are simply that. If those skills are used to simply make money then it can be evil. If those skills are used for the forces of good to take out evil priests, demons, ect. then there isn't as much disruption with good/vs evil although paladins will have issues
To me its who you kill and why that is the moral question, not the tactics used to do it.

I would use assassin abilities to supplement the skills of the thief class and make a thief-assassin option similar to the thief-acrobat from UA.

[Fifth Element]

Originally Posted by Simon Atavax

3. I can't envision how an assassin can work as a PC class. I remember reading an article David 'Zeb' Cook wrote in DRAGON to the same effect, that assassins, by their very nature, were counter-productive to the concept of a heroic, unified party. Does anyone have experience in making the evil assassin class workable within a party?

No, I agree with you. The only time I've seen an assassin used effectively was when I played one in a one-on-one game.

[darjr]

Originally Posted by Fifth Element

No, I agree with you. The only time I've seen an assassin used effectively was when I played one in a one-on-one game.

That, right there, is the reason to have assassins.

A party of assassins leads to a similar type of game.

Sure, it could be done with thieves, but...

[Philotomy Jurament]

Originally Posted by Simon Atavax

1. I just don't like the idea that the magic user has his one, lonely little spell which, once casted, renders him a weak, fleshy target until the following day. I remember that, as kids, we beefed up magic-users through a very nifty in-game process: the young 1st level apprentice was given a healthy heaping of scrolls and wands from his mentor as a "parting gift". "Use them wisely, and you may survive," he was told. Does anyone have any thoughts on this issue?

If you want to beef up low-level magic users, giving them wands and scrolls is an excellent way to do it (not least because those are finite resources). I also allow "special effects", which are very minor cantrip-like effects related to any spells the magic user has memorized.

2. In combat, why would PCs ever declare their action to be "set weapons to receive a charge"...But wouldn't setting weapons to receive a charge be the kind of thing the PCs would only do in RESPONSE to seeing the monsters charge?

Not necessarily. I could certainly see PCs setting weapons against a potential charge before a charge actually took place.

[T. Foster]

1. It's a perspective and immersion thing -- for a 1st level magic-user, think of it as, essentially YOU in the dungeon, with no special skills or talents or equipment (except whatever Boy Scout or MacGyver-ish gear you may have thought to bring along -- rope, tinderbox, etc.) relying purely on your wits to survive and prosper. You can't fight these monsters -- you have to either trick them, befriend them, or run away from them. The same with traps -- if you get caught in a trap you're screwed, so you need to do everything you can to make sure that doesn't happen. Playing a 1st level magic-user is HARD because you have zero room for error -- the first mistake you make will almost certainly be the last -- but it's also fun, because it's the most immediate -- a 1st level m-u is the closest you'll ever get to actually playing yourself in the dungeon. And if, against all those odds, you do manage to survive, through quick thinking and probably at least a bit of luck, you'll feel better about yourself, that you beat the odds and actually accomplished something.

2. In 1E AD&D if you're more than 10' apart there are on;y 2 ways to get into melee range: 1) charge; 2) spend a full round closing to melee range (meaning you can't attack and can't be attacked (unless someone charges you) until the next round. Therefore, if at the start of the round your opponents aren't in melee range then they're either going to stay disengaged (firing missiles or spells), charge you, or spend the round closing. If you think #2 is most likely, and you have a spear, you can set it against the charge and, if you guessed correctly, get first strike and score double damage if you hit. If you guessed incorrectly and the enemy stays disengaged then you've lost your action for the round (you could have fired a missile, charged, or closed instead); if you guessed incorrectly and the enemy closed normally instead of charging then both you and the enemy have effectively lost your actions for the round (you could have fired a missile or charged; if you and the enemy had both chosen to close with each other then it's a wash (though if you're using minis both should be placed in the middle instead of moving one all the way to meet the other)). It's a tactical decision, based on what you think the enemy is likely to do.

3. Fundamentally you're right, and by-and-large the assassin class doesn't really work as a PC and would probably have been better relegated to NPC-only status, or at least labeled as optional rather than included as part of the default core. However, in a particular set of circumstances assassin PCs can work: as originally envisioned, AD&D campaigns weren't like what they generally are nowadays where the same 5 or 6 players get together every week to play the same 5 or 6 characters who've been adventuring together since 1st level and every time one of them dies he's immediately replaced by 1 new character, likely of the same class. The original assumed AD&D campaign structure was much more like the West Marches, where there was a fluid player-base not of 5 or 6 guys but of maybe 15 or 20, and the makeup of which players and which characters would participate varied from session to session. Sometimes you'd have 15 players get together for the 1E equivalent of a "boss raid," usually you'd get 3-6 players with compatible characters (and note that the most active players tended to have multiple characters so they'd always have someone available who could fit into a party with whatever other players were available -- different classes, different alignments, different levels), and sometimes you'd get 1 or 2 players off operating on their own. Some characters, and even some players, might well never overlap even though they're all in the same campaign. In a setup like this (and pretty much only in a setup like this) an assassin character can work -- he mostly operates on his own or with other evil characters, but occasionally he'll temporarily join up with a party of other adventurers who don't know what he really is -- perhaps "honestly" (functioning as a de facto thief) or perhaps with some devious ulterior motive -- to cheat, betray, or even outright assassinate the other PCs (the assassin character could very well have been hired, by an NPC or another PC, to do just that).

[Philotomy Jurament]

Originally Posted by T. Foster

Playing a 1st level magic-user is HARD...but it's also fun, because it's the most immediate -- a 1st level m-u is the closest you'll ever get to actually playing yourself in the dungeon...

I agree with everything you said about playing a low-level magic user. I recently played one in a Swords & Wizardry game (playing is a treat for me -- historically, I'm almost *always* the DM), and loved it for all the reasons you describe.

I did well through multiple excursions, charming men-at-arms to aid me, charming gate-guards to avoid taxes, sleep-nuking goblins all over the place, et cetera. Sadly, I did make a mistake, last session. I got complacent (and greedy) and walked up to look in an open chest, myself, without checking everything out, first. A giant tick dropped on me from the cavern ceiling and took me down.

[SableWyvern]

Originally Posted by Simon Atavax

2. In combat, why would PCs ever declare their action to be "set weapons to receive a charge"? Because as I read the RAW, it seems that actions in combat are declared BEFORE knowing what the monsters are going to do (thus giving a more simultaneous feel to things). But wouldn't setting weapons to receive a charge be the kind of thing the PCs would only do in RESPONSE to seeing the monsters charge?

I assume you understand the mechanical reasons for doing this -- you can't declare after a charge, because you've already been charged by that point.

I can see several in-character reasons for doing so:

1. You have reason to expect that the enemy will charge. In this case, assuming you don't want to advance or charge yourself, might as well be ready. What is served by waiting until the charge has begun before readying yourself?

2. Setting weapons may actively discourage a charge. If the enemy is readying itself to charge, and then sees you readying yourself to receive a charge and inflict hideous damage, they may rethink and cancel their action.

3. You want to defend a position and maintain group coherency. Anyone without ranged weapons might as well provide themselves with the most defensible posture they can.

4. You want to parley, but you also you want to have a defensible position, and display a strong posture. An enemy that understands the tactical advantages of readied weapons may be more inclined to treat you with respect. Especially if the group shows military cohesion and discipline as they run through their "Set To Repulse -- Forward" drill.

[Simon Atavax]

Originally Posted by SableWyvern

I assume you understand the mechanical reasons for doing this -- you can't declare after a charge, because you've already been charged by that point.

2. Setting weapons may actively discourage a charge. If the enemy is readying itself to charge, and then sees you readying yourself to receive a charge and inflict hideous damage, they may rethink and cancel their action.

Are enemies in fact allowed to do this? I don't have my DMG handy, but I thought I read there that Gygax instructs DM's not to change the action of the monsters based on what the characters decide to do. So, in other words, if the characters tell the DM "We're gonna set our spears hard in case they charge," and the DM had already (privately) decided the monsters would charge, he should have the monsters charge, regardless of what the PCs have declared.

But I could be wrong. I'm reading the books for the first "serious" time since the early 80s.

[SableWyvern]

Originally Posted by Simon Atavax

Are enemies in fact allowed to do this? I don't have my DMG handy, but I thought I read there that Gygax instructs DM's not to change the action of the monsters based on what the characters decide to do. So, in other words, if the characters tell the DM "We're gonna set our spears hard in case they charge," and the DM had already (privately) decided the monsters would charge, he should have the monsters charge, regardless of what the PCs have declared.

But I could be wrong. I'm reading the books for the first "serious" time since the early 80s.

Could well be. I'm currently reading the books for the first serious time ever. In any event, they certainly couldn't change their action to something else. If cancelling a monster action is allowed, it would defeinitely mean giving up their actions for the entire round.

Edit to add: I'd generally be inclined to charge any monsters that had intended to do so. I'd be most inclined to cancel a charge in a situation where the PCs were hoping to parley, and seeing weapons set against them might be enough to convince them to give it a try. Which, now that I think of it, is a situation where the DM is definitely expected to alter monster actions from their declaration -- if a monster that has declared an aggressive action has to follow through, success parleying becomes nearly impossible when you don't have surprise.

Further edit: Although, I suppose you could consider a successful parley to be a PC action that cancels a monster's planned action.

[Philotomy Jurament]

Originally Posted by Simon Atavax

Are enemies in fact allowed to do this?

I view the rules (especially the AD&D initiative rules) as guidelines for the DM to best adjudicate the situation. So my answer is "it depends."

I wouldn't let the enemies change their charge into a tactically superior option, but I might make it a "morale issue," especially if the distance took more than a few seconds to cover. For example, if the enemies charge, and there's time for them to see the PCs present a line of braced and glittering spears, I might roll for morale to see if the charge disintegrates in confusion, or if some individuals drop out.

If the enemies charge, and the PCs shout "we offer you tribute for passage," and there's sufficient time/distance to halt the charge, I might rule that the enemy commander orders a halt for further negotiations.

With the AD&D initiative rules and determining who does what when, my advice is to go with your gut and what makes sense, using the rules as a guide. The general rule is that 1d6 is rolled and high roll goes first. Everything else is a collection of exception cases for that general rule. Keep in mind that a round is a minute and the abstract nature of combat, and think about what makes sense. Can they halt the charge in time? Can the archer shoot before the charge covers that ground? Et cetera.

[Delta]

Originally Posted by Simon Atavax

2. In combat, why would PCs ever declare their action to be "set weapons to receive a charge"? Because as I read the RAW, it seems that actions in combat are declared BEFORE knowing what the monsters are going to do (thus giving a more simultaneous feel to things). But wouldn't setting weapons to receive a charge be the kind of thing the PCs would only do in RESPONSE to seeing the monsters charge?

I'm going to come at this in a different direction, because I think the other answers got derailed a bit by the initiative question.

Obviously, we're talking about the 1E polearms here. To my knowledge, yes, characters have to declare "setting" weapons before they know a charge will take place. (Just like in 3E with the "ready" action, 3E's equivalent to this whole process.)

A couple things: My understanding is that 1E polearms weren't much intended for dungeoneering PC's in the first place. They're (a) big with a troublesome space-required figure, (b) very slow speed factor, (c) likely to have enemies get under your weapon and give up multiple attacks (by the complicated full DMG initiative rules). They're presented as a simulative add-on because they were important on medieval battlefields. The extra damage is only against charging Large-sized opponents (i.e., cavalry horses), excepting spears.

So it makes a bit more sense if you think how non-PCs will use them. They're in a mass formation outside in a large encounter. Maybe you've got a big array of soldiers/orcs who are facing down the PCs with them. Or maybe you've got a line of henchmen/hirelings hunkered down, protecting the party wizard while he casts spells. While it might be troubling to think of a PC "wasting an action" readying a polearm, it's not so troubling if you think of it in the hands of an associate in a larger party, as 1E was intended to play out.


As a side note, I'm philosophically against declaring action before initiative (except for spellcasting), so the problem of "can you change your action?" doesn't arise for me. Intelligent enemies are definitely capable of deciding to not charge a mass of polearms (in fact, that's actually the... um... point).

[Clavis]

Originally Posted by Simon Atavax

1. The "one spell a day" thing about 1st and 2nd level magic-users has always bugged me about AD&D 1e (and for that matter, 2e). I just don't like the idea that the magic user has his one, lonely little spell which, once casted, renders him a weak, fleshy target until the following day. I remember that, as kids, we beefed up magic-users through a very nifty in-game process: the young 1st level apprentice was given a healthy heaping of scrolls and wands from his mentor as a "parting gift". "Use them wisely, and you may survive," he was told. Does anyone have any thoughts on this issue?

I think it's a good idea, although I would make it only a scroll of 3 or 4 spells. A wand of Magic missiles with only a few charges on it isn't a bad idea either. Low level Magic Users are meant to be challenging to play, so that when you actually survive you get a real feeling of accomplishment. Also, it wouldn't hurt to suggest the Magic User hires himself a man-at-arms as a bodyguard. Remember, hirelings and henchmen are a vital part of 1st Edition play, and the rules assume that PCs will employ them.

Originally Posted by Simon Atavax

3. I can't envision how an assassin can work as a PC class. I remember reading an article David 'Zeb' Cook wrote in DRAGON to the same effect, that assassins, by their very nature, were counter-productive to the concept of a heroic, unified party. Does anyone have experience in making the evil assassin class workable within a party?

I've made Assassins work in a party before. First of all, 1st Edition does not assume that the PCs are heroes - they are adventurers, primarily motivated by a desire for wealth and adventure. Only the Paladin class assumes that the PC is inherently heroic.

One way to make the Assassin work is make him a secret agent type, not a killer for hire. Sort of a medieval James Bond. In the past, I've used the idea that the Assassin character was employed by a vigilante-like secret society. Sure the Assassin's still a bad guy, but what he fights is usually far worse. Another idea, one that features in my current campaign, is that the Assassin's Guild winds up actually pursuing and punishing murderers, in the name of maintaining its own criminal monopoly. So you have a gang of killers that spend much of their time solving murders, in order to send the message that nobody gets killed without Guild permission!

[Simon Atavax]

Originally Posted by Clavis

Remember, hirelings and henchmen are a vital part of 1st Edition play, and the rules assume that PCs will employ them.

Excellent point. This is one thing I'm really enjoying and finding intriguing about my "return" (after 28 years ) to AD&D 1e. Managing the henchmen and hirelings (for the players) and keeping careful track of the wonderfully detailed morale ruels (for me as DM) is going to greatly enrich the gaming experience, IMHO.

[thedungeondelver]

Originally Posted by Simon Atavax

Excellent point. This is one thing I'm really enjoying and finding intriguing about my "return" (after 28 years ) to AD&D 1e. Managing the henchmen and hirelings (for the players) and keeping careful track of the wonderfully detailed morale ruels (for me as DM) is going to greatly enrich the gaming experience, IMHO.

Remember, infantry henchmen are typically good for only a single venture into a dungeon, then want their pay and dismissal.

[Simon Atavax]

Originally Posted by thedungeondelver

Remember, infantry henchmen are typically good for only a single venture into a dungeon, then want their pay and dismissal.

Assuming they survive, of course.

[Nikosandros]

Originally Posted by thedungeondelver

Remember, infantry henchmen are typically good for only a single venture into a dungeon, then want their pay and dismissal.

You mean hirelings, right? Henchmen are in for the long run.

[Simon Atavax]

Originally Posted by Nikosandros

You mean hirelings, right? Henchmen are in for the long run.

Actually, you're right:

"If henchmen are defined as the associates, companions, and loyal (to some degree) followers of a player character, hirelings are the servitors, mercenaries, and employees of such player characters" (Gygax, DMG, 29)

Although there is nothing to say a henchman won't cut and run if not treated well. I love the (surprisingly detailed) mechanics for henchmen loyalty checks (36-38).

[thedungeondelver]

Originally Posted by Nikosandros

You mean hirelings, right? Henchmen are in for the long run.

Yes, hirelings - I always get those two backwards.

[Nikosandros]

Originally Posted by Simon Atavax

Although there is nothing to say a henchman won't cut and run if not treated well. I love the (surprisingly detailed) mechanics for henchmen loyalty checks (36-38).

There is nothing to reward players who dump charisma like having a henchmen flee in the middle of combat...