4th to 5th Edition Converters - What has been your experience?

[pemerton]

I STILL want someone to prove to me that there's even the most elementary level of 'stickiness' to an AD&D character (fighter or whatnot is irrelevant). The ONE fragment of rule that all this is hung on simply states that if someone 'flees' then their opponent gets to make an immediate rear attack on them, and there's some additional fairly fuzzy statement about being able to 'withdraw', which MAY be construed as something like characters control some undefined amount of space around them. It is NEVER defined what constitutes becoming engaged, and there's NO HINT AT ALL of anything like an "OA" or "passing attack" or any such parlance that would constitute a mechanic for punishing or forcing to stop anyone going past you. Its PRETTY clear that a character occupies some sort of 'frontage' and you can't simply pass through that area without displacing the enemy BUT EVEN THAT ISN'T SPELLED OUT.

I can attest that in the OLD days, pre-1980 D&D play, that it was considered normal to require 3 fighters abreast to block a 10' corridor. If they had large (IE 2-handed) weapons, then we usually decided you could block 2 abreast vs 3. I know of no rule for any of this, though AD&D does clearly introduce an amount of 'frontage', the space required, that you MUST have.

But beyond that is all mystery. There's NOTHING that defines what the criteria are for someone to be considered 'engaged'. Does it mean "came within weapon reach (and is that = to space required) of an opponent"? Perhaps

<snip>

AD&D's combat system is actually ENTIRELY a 'narrative' sort of system. It isn't made up of any kind of comprehensive rules framework. Its more like a 'chocolate chip cookie', there's a lot rules embedded in there, but most of the bulk of the thing is actually just a sort of unspoken "make it work". So the answer to "can I just go right by the orc blocking the door" is "No, how would that be possible, describle it narratively and THEN we'll know if its allowed" The ultimate point being, you can't talk about what characters can and cannot do in AD&D combat. It is literally not a topic of objective discussion because AD&D doesn't HAVE combat rules. It has some disjoint systems that can be used together to produce a combat narrative, but its not rules in anything like the way 3e, 4e or even 5e (mostly) mean by rules.

I'm not going to try and disprove your thesis about AD&D and rules (and I'm not sure I would want to).

All I'm going to do is point to some of the passages that inform my understanding of how it works. (A bit like 4e skill challenges, the rules/advice is somewhat scattered across multiple books and sections.)

First, spacing (3 people per 10' frontage):

Figure bases are necessarily broad in order to assure that the figures will stand in the proper position and not constantly be falling over. Because of this, it is usually necessary to use a ground scale twice that of the actual scale . . . and squares of about 1 actual inch per side are suggested. Each ground scale inch can then be used to equal 3½ linear feet, so a 10' wide scale corridor is 3 actual inches in width and shown as 3 separate squares. This allows depiction of the typical array of three figures abreast . . . (DMG, p 10)​

Second, engagement (melee engagement occurs within 10'):

Close To Striking Range . . . This action is typically taken when the opponent is over 1" distant but not a long distance away. . . . [M]elee is not possible. (DMG p 66 - closing rules)

The opponent must be within 10' distance at the termination of the charge in order for any blows to be struck during that round. (DMG, p 66 - charging rules)

At the end of any movement portion where any number of the pursued party is within 10' or less of any number of the pursuing party, confrontation must take place between the concerned members of the parties. (DMG, p 68 - evasion and pursuit rules)

Next the DM checks distance, and finds that the parties are only 10' apart - sufficiently near to close and strike. (DMG, p 71 - example of combat)​

Third, stickiness:

Falling back is a retrograde move facing the opponent(s) and can be used in conjunction with a parry, and opponent creatures are able to follow if not otherwise engaged. Fleeing means as rapid a withdrawal from combat as possible; while it exposes the character to rear attack at the time, subsequent attacks can only be made if the opponent is able to follow the fleeing character at equal or greater speed. (PHB, 104-105)

It is always possible to flee from on undesired confrontation if the other party is surprised. It is never possible to flee from on encounter where the opponent party is in striking range. (See Breaking Off From Melee, below.) A party can always flee an encounter if it gains the first initiative. (DMG, p 63 - rules for avoiding engagement)

At such time as any creature decides, it can break off the engagement and flee the melee. To do so, however, allows the opponent a free attack or attack routine. This attack is calculated as if it were a rear attack upon a stunned opponent. When this attack is completed, the retiring/fleeing party may move away at full movement rate, and unless the opponent pursues and is able to move at a higher rate of speed, the melee is ended and the situation becomes one of encounter avoidance. (DMG, p 70 - rules for breaking off from melee​

The picture this makes for me is that once you're inside 10' you're engaged in melee, and (unless you have the benefit of surprise) you can't run away without drawing a free attack routine from your opponent. You can fall back, but your opponent can follow without penalty (unless engaged by someone else) and so the situation won't have changed from one of melee to one of evasion and pursuit.

I feel this picture is reinforced by the general "all in" character of melee:

t is generally not possible to select a specific opponent in a mass melee. If this is the case, simply use some random number generation to find out which attacks are upon which opponents, remembering that only a certain number of attacks can usually be made upon one opponent. If characters or similar intelligent creatures are able to single out an opponent or opponents, then the concerned figures will remain locked in melee until one side is dead or opts to attempt to break off the combat. If there are unengaged opponents, they will move to melee the unengaged enemy. If the now-unengaged figures desire to assist others of their party, they will have to proceed to the area in which their fellows are engaged, using the movement rates already expressed. (DMG, p 70)​

In fact, as far as I can tell there is no movement in melee (other than falling back or fleeing). You can close to striking range (and not attack) or charge (and attack, and potentially trigger attacks from set weapons). But once you are engaged, you are locked in melee until someone dies, falls back without being followed, or flees.

Taken as a whole, this certainly seems to me to imply no "conga lines of death" and a high degree of "stickiness".

 

[pemerton]

vampiric regeneration and some other stupid tricks.

<snip>

I think we finally decided the bad guys gave up after I hit about 5000 hit points.

From the 1st ed DMG, p 130:

Ring of Regeneration: . . . In no case can the wearer's hit point total exceed that initially generated.​

It seems like one of your PC's stupid tricks was having some way of circumventing this by storing piles of siphoned life force (a bit like the soul gems of demiliches and Osterneth in Open Grave).

 

[Manbearcat]

Sorry for late response, [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION]. I've been a bit MIA with various real life errands, etc. [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has quoted the relevant text above from the 1e AD&D PHB and DMG. Obviously you've read both of those passages before. While the ruleset as a whole had its weird intersections and incoherencies, I'm a bit surprised at your incredulity (or maybe the vehemence of it) about the nature/legitimacy of stickiness in AD&D. I mean, effectively the available moves are:

* Hack and Slash (attack routine)
* Parry (forgo attack and add +Str to hit mod to AC) and Fall Back/Pursue
* Flee and eat attack routine to back as stunned (to either tactically "reset" within the scope of the combat or to invoke the Evasion and Pursuit rules if no opposing party can immediately retain Striking Range)

As far as the Heroic Fray rules from Combat and Tactics go, pretty straight forward stuff. Instead of sub-1 HD monsters, it just scales with the heroes to apply to less than 1 HD but also PC level - 10 HD monsters. This creates a 4e tier effect on play which was very desirable. We pretty much used AD&D1e, UA, Mohan's Wilderness Survival Guide (NWPs and related), some class stuff from 2e, some Dragon stuff, Combat and Tactics, a few Complete books, and my own XP hack (which looks interestingly like DW's end of session stuff + Alignment).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

From the 1st ed DMG, p 130:

Ring of Regeneration: . . . In no case can the wearer's hit point total exceed that initially generated.​

It seems like one of your PC's stupid tricks was having some way of circumventing this by storing piles of siphoned life force (a bit like the soul gems of demiliches and Osterneth in Open Grave).

My recollection is that I had a ring of VAMPIRIC regeneration, a sword of life-stealing, and some sort of armor (I recall it being barkskin armor, something like that) which ALSO had some sort of vitality stealing/restoring effect (I'd have to dig back into old boxes of stuff and come up with a copy of the character sheet, its been years now).

Its also possible we had some GW1e mutations in play, though I don't recall this particular character having any. Our games included a rather wide range of material.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm not going to try and disprove your thesis about AD&D and rules (and I'm not sure I would want to).

All I'm going to do is point to some of the passages that inform my understanding of how it works. (A bit like 4e skill challenges, the rules/advice is somewhat scattered across multiple books and sections.)

First, spacing (3 people per 10' frontage):

Figure bases are necessarily broad in order to assure that the figures will stand in the proper position and not constantly be falling over. Because of this, it is usually necessary to use a ground scale twice that of the actual scale . . . and squares of about 1 actual inch per side are suggested. Each ground scale inch can then be used to equal 3½ linear feet, so a 10' wide scale corridor is 3 actual inches in width and shown as 3 separate squares. This allows depiction of the typical array of three figures abreast . . . (DMG, p 10)​

Second, engagement (melee engagement occurs within 10'):

Close To Striking Range . . . This action is typically taken when the opponent is over 1" distant but not a long distance away. . . . [M]elee is not possible. (DMG p 66 - closing rules)

The opponent must be within 10' distance at the termination of the charge in order for any blows to be struck during that round. (DMG, p 66 - charging rules)

At the end of any movement portion where any number of the pursued party is within 10' or less of any number of the pursuing party, confrontation must take place between the concerned members of the parties. (DMG, p 68 - evasion and pursuit rules)

Next the DM checks distance, and finds that the parties are only 10' apart - sufficiently near to close and strike. (DMG, p 71 - example of combat)​

Third, stickiness:

Falling back is a retrograde move facing the opponent(s) and can be used in conjunction with a parry, and opponent creatures are able to follow if not otherwise engaged. Fleeing means as rapid a withdrawal from combat as possible; while it exposes the character to rear attack at the time, subsequent attacks can only be made if the opponent is able to follow the fleeing character at equal or greater speed. (PHB, 104-105)

It is always possible to flee from on undesired confrontation if the other party is surprised. It is never possible to flee from on encounter where the opponent party is in striking range. (See Breaking Off From Melee, below.) A party can always flee an encounter if it gains the first initiative. (DMG, p 63 - rules for avoiding engagement)

At such time as any creature decides, it can break off the engagement and flee the melee. To do so, however, allows the opponent a free attack or attack routine. This attack is calculated as if it were a rear attack upon a stunned opponent. When this attack is completed, the retiring/fleeing party may move away at full movement rate, and unless the opponent pursues and is able to move at a higher rate of speed, the melee is ended and the situation becomes one of encounter avoidance. (DMG, p 70 - rules for breaking off from melee​

The picture this makes for me is that once you're inside 10' you're engaged in melee, and (unless you have the benefit of surprise) you can't run away without drawing a free attack routine from your opponent. You can fall back, but your opponent can follow without penalty (unless engaged by someone else) and so the situation won't have changed from one of melee to one of evasion and pursuit.

I feel this picture is reinforced by the general "all in" character of melee:

t is generally not possible to select a specific opponent in a mass melee. If this is the case, simply use some random number generation to find out which attacks are upon which opponents, remembering that only a certain number of attacks can usually be made upon one opponent. If characters or similar intelligent creatures are able to single out an opponent or opponents, then the concerned figures will remain locked in melee until one side is dead or opts to attempt to break off the combat. If there are unengaged opponents, they will move to melee the unengaged enemy. If the now-unengaged figures desire to assist others of their party, they will have to proceed to the area in which their fellows are engaged, using the movement rates already expressed. (DMG, p 70)​

In fact, as far as I can tell there is no movement in melee (other than falling back or fleeing). You can close to striking range (and not attack) or charge (and attack, and potentially trigger attacks from set weapons). But once you are engaged, you are locked in melee until someone dies, falls back without being followed, or flees.

Taken as a whole, this certainly seems to me to imply no "conga lines of death" and a high degree of "stickiness".

Yes, I understand all this. I agree that there aren't 'konga lines of death' in AD&D combat by any reasonable interpretation of the system. Once you ARE engaged in melee (whatever constitutes that) you're STUCK there. Whether some degree of moving around is possible is VERY much open to interpretation however. I mean, one of your quotes distinctly talks about "proceed to the area" etc, but it doesn't explain how that would be possible. Nor is it AT ALL clear just how much one character can engage, one enemy? Many enemies? Limitless numbers of enemies? What happens with anyone beyond that limit, can they simply 'pass through' where the enemy is? None of this is clearly spelled out in AD&D AT ALL.

What AD&D, inherited from OD&D, assumes is a table top miniatures play type understanding of units, frontages, movement, and control of space. This stuff IS spelled out in Chainmail, its the core of the rules OF Chainmail! When D&D incrementally jettisoned Chainmail as its explicit rule system it didn't replace this understanding with anything. In 1e (and 2e) the game ASSUMES a lot of the rules that are explicit in Chainmail but doesn't actually incorporate them anywhere in the text of the rules! Nor does it tell you "go use Chainmail for this". Gygax just 'did it' and he wasn't particularly careful about writing down the baseline fundamental underlying assumptions of how play was carried out.

The closest AD&D ever comes is the 'spacing' quote you found (good catch, most people don't ever notice that). Its still not at all clear. All it basically boils down to is "a figure more-or-less occupies a 3.3' wide space" with no explanation of how that would relate to weapon frontage/required space, nor size of the figure, nor if it is an absolute, a maximum, a minimum, or what. Again, if you go back to Chainmail this is all clearly spelled out (albeit the ground scale is different and a figure represents 10 creatures, not one by default).

The upshot is there's a sort of rough idea of what should happen, and most tables have a basic consensus about it, but there isn't really a hard and fast rule. A player could pretty much expect his character to be able to completely block a 3.3' wide space and make one enemy 'stick' to him if it comes within 10' (again this is loose though, is it really ALWAYS 10'?). You could justifiably argue this much, but no more, and even this much is SURELY subject to DM interpretation based on the detailed situation.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Sorry for late response, [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION]. I've been a bit MIA with various real life errands, etc. [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has quoted the relevant text above from the 1e AD&D PHB and DMG. Obviously you've read both of those passages before. While the ruleset as a whole had its weird intersections and incoherencies, I'm a bit surprised at your incredulity (or maybe the vehemence of it) about the nature/legitimacy of stickiness in AD&D. I mean, effectively the available moves are:

* Hack and Slash (attack routine)
* Parry (forgo attack and add +Str to hit mod to AC) and Fall Back/Pursue
* Flee and eat attack routine to back as stunned (to either tactically "reset" within the scope of the combat or to invoke the Evasion and Pursuit rules if no opposing party can immediately retain Striking Range)

As far as the Heroic Fray rules from Combat and Tactics go, pretty straight forward stuff. Instead of sub-1 HD monsters, it just scales with the heroes to apply to less than 1 HD but also PC level - 10 HD monsters. This creates a 4e tier effect on play which was very desirable. We pretty much used AD&D1e, UA, Mohan's Wilderness Survival Guide (NWPs and related), some class stuff from 2e, some Dragon stuff, Combat and Tactics, a few Complete books, and my own XP hack (which looks interestingly like DW's end of session stuff + Alignment).

As I just said, my point isn't to argue that people shouldn't interpret AD&D's rules to mean there's some level of stickiness, but you simply cannot say there is ANY CERTAIN AMOUNT. I could easily (and many people did) interpret all of what was stated above (all the 1e DMG quotes) to mean that if 2 opponents WANTED to be engaged and could get within 10' of each other they could do so, but that otherwise one would require superior speed or a narrow choke point in order to accomplish that. At the VERY LEAST equal speed and an explicit statement of intent made during the "planning phase" of the melee round along the lines of "I will move to block anyone going past me and engage them". Doing so would necessarily involve forgoing any explicit attack (and can you do that if already engaged, who knows?).

All of this is why 3.x added shifting and OAs as explicit mechanics, to clear up all these questions! 4e really just brings things back to the realm of where they were back in the earliest days of OD&D where Chainmail rules produced a very explicit idea of space, positioning, and movement.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

I'm just going to poke my head in about the Heroic Fray bit.

I could have *sworn* up and down that it was mentioned somewhere in the 2e PHB, but I couldn't find it. It *is* in the 2e DMG, in a tiny blue-shaded text box in the Initiative section, but is expanded on in Combat & Tactics, as already pointed out. It was a rule we rarely, if ever, used. Though I started with 1e, or possibly even OD&D (I don't know because I was so young and just playing in my friend's older brother's game), the bulk of my AD&D experience happened during the 2e era.

I do recall though that melee was "sticky" - though we certainly didn't think of it in the same sense we do now. Breaking away from a melee engagement, was never ideal, unless you were damn sure the opponent was going to miss, or you could eat whatever damage they'd deal. A fresh character with some levels under their belt had little to fear from a basic orc, for example, but you would never do that if there was a multi-attacker like a troll or claw/claw/biter, up in your grill. That also applied to anything that could hit really hard as well.

I recall that when it was necessary to fall back, "disengage" was used a fair bit, usually covered by another melee type, missile fire, or a spell, barring some other means of just plain being able to out-run the opponent. This sort of fall back was frequently used to find more tactically advantageous ground, like choke points and the like, especially if we were doing a graph paper fight, instead of the usual TotM.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm just going to poke my head in about the Heroic Fray bit.

I could have *sworn* up and down that it was mentioned somewhere in the 2e PHB, but I couldn't find it. It *is* in the 2e DMG, in a tiny blue-shaded text box in the Initiative section, but is expanded on in Combat & Tactics, as already pointed out. It was a rule we rarely, if ever, used. Though I started with 1e, or possibly even OD&D (I don't know because I was so young and just playing in my friend's older brother's game), the bulk of my AD&D experience happened during the 2e era.

I do recall though that melee was "sticky" - though we certainly didn't think of it in the same sense we do now. Breaking away from a melee engagement, was never ideal, unless you were damn sure the opponent was going to miss, or you could eat whatever damage they'd deal. A fresh character with some levels under their belt had little to fear from a basic orc, for example, but you would never do that if there was a multi-attacker like a troll or claw/claw/biter, up in your grill. That also applied to anything that could hit really hard as well.

I recall that when it was necessary to fall back, "disengage" was used a fair bit, usually covered by another melee type, missile fire, or a spell, barring some other means of just plain being able to out-run the opponent. This sort of fall back was frequently used to find more tactically advantageous ground, like choke points and the like, especially if we were doing a graph paper fight, instead of the usual TotM.

I recall the DMG having an optional "If its 10 levels below you, or under 1 hit die" rule, yes. Its not a bad rule, and gives fighters a bit of something extra (which they badly need!). Where things would get ambiguous was situations like say where 2 characters are engaged with a troll. Can the troll be said to 'engage' both of them, or is one simply free to move away? Do the 'parting shots' count as the other parties' normal attack routine, or can they make an entire EXTRA set of attacks on top of "from the back as if stunned" (which against a fighter with a shield is AT LEAST the equivalent of getting +5 to all your attacks, and probably more). Would parting shots be 'split' (IE if 2 guys retreat from a troll does it get C/C/B against BOTH OF THEM, or just 3 attacks split in some way, or does it even get to try to follow both).

Its also not clear in what sense missile fire for instance would 'cover a retreat'. If one character flees or 'disengages' is the opponent not still locked in melee given that it is now in pursuit? Is there any point at which missile fire is possible?

There are HUGE GAPS, and in any case the application of all this logic to the initial situation of opponents approaching and a fighter trying to keep them pinned down is ALL extrapolation! A perfectly reasonable reading of the rules would have it that you can only engage people that you end up within 10' of. Remember, movement and attacks are simultaneous (or near-simultaneous) in AD&D combat. Both sides plot their moves ahead, reveal them, initiative is checked, and the results are worked out, with the higher initiative party striking blows first (mostly, sort of, depending on which optional rules you use). 'Common sense' indicates that 2 opponents won't 'pass through' one another if they moved in from opposite directions, but AD&D doesn't even contain a rule, not even a suggestion, as to exactly where such opponents would end up, how to resolve just how close they came to each other if they're moving to different places at different rates from various directions, just how much faster you'd have to be than someone else to 'run around them' (assuming space exists, and how much would you need).

Again, even the 15' wide bridge held by 3 PCs isn't a clear case in AD&D where you can prevent the enemy from going past, and its entirely unclear how many of them you can stop or 'OA' on their way by. ENTIRELY unclear, not just "it depends a little bit on how you rules lawyer this" its UTTERLY unclear and completely up to the DM, who can very reasonably make any of several different rulings. REALLY, go run AD&D at a Con and see what happens, this stuff comes up all the time and it can only be resolved by the ancient "DM is always right" of 'rule zero'.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION], the Ring text I quoted applies to Rings of Vampiric Regeneration as well as the normal ones (hence "in no case" - ie whichever sort of ring you have). Sword of Life-Stealing says (DMG p 166) that hp gain is "subject to the limit of his or her maximum number of hit points predetermined by rolling hit dice, i.e. only a character who has somehow suffered loss of hit points can benefit from the function." Maybe your armour was your "soul battery"?

Whether some degree of moving around is possible is VERY much open to interpretation however. I mean, one of your quotes distinctly talks about "proceed to the area" etc, but it doesn't explain how that would be possible. Nor is it AT ALL clear just how much one character can engage, one enemy? Many enemies? Limitless numbers of enemies? What happens with anyone beyond that limit, can they simply 'pass through' where the enemy is? None of this is clearly spelled out in AD&D AT ALL.

<snip>

In 1e (and 2e) the game ASSUMES a lot of the rules that are explicit in Chainmail but doesn't actually incorporate them anywhere in the text of the rules! Nor does it tell you "go use Chainmail for this".

<snip>

The closest AD&D ever comes is the 'spacing' quote you found (good catch, most people don't ever notice that). Its still not at all clear. All it basically boils down to is "a figure more-or-less occupies a 3.3' wide space" with no explanation of how that would relate to weapon frontage/required space, nor size of the figure, nor if it is an absolute, a maximum, a minimum, or what.

<snip>

The upshot is there's a sort of rough idea of what should happen, and most tables have a basic consensus about it, but there isn't really a hard and fast rule. A player could pretty much expect his character to be able to completely block a 3.3' wide space and make one enemy 'stick' to him if it comes within 10' (again this is loose though, is it really ALWAYS 10'?). You could justifiably argue this much, but no more, and even this much is SURELY subject to DM interpretation based on the detailed situation.

I don't dispute that there's GM interpretation. I think the most fuzzy paragraph of the ones I quoted is the one you picked up on (with "proceed to the area"):

If characters or similar intelligent creatures are able to single out an opponent or opponents, then the concerned figures will remain locked in melee until one side is dead or opts to attempt to break off the combat. If there are unengaged opponents, they will move to melee the unengaged enemy. If the now-unengaged figures desire to assist others of their party, they will have to proceed to the area in which their fellows are engaged, using the movement rates already expressed.​

I think it's clear enough that if you're unengaged you have to use your movement to re-engage. I assume that would involve either the charging rules (but not more than once per turn) or the close-to-striking-range rules. But it's not spelled out at all. What's most obscure to me is the bit about singling out opponents and staying "locked in melee". That's where the ratios (how many engaged figures per character?) are unclear. There's also the rules for using hexes or squares (pictures on DMG p 69) and they are interesting because depending on whether hexes or squares are used the number of surrounding figures is 6 or 8 - so to some extent positioning is dependent upon mapping conventions! - not the fiction.

Do you engage the people behind you? Can you turn to do so? The rules don't say.

On the 10' issue: that's what 3E and 4e go with (max distance across two adjacent squares is 10') but I agree it's not clear what happens in all cases, especially if (say) the character is short and wielding a dagger or chopsticks.

Leaving the gnomes with chopsticks to one side, my reading would be that if a melee is going on between you and someone you want to "single out" you can't just wander through - it's either go around, or fight your way through. What I think is diffferent from 5' step/shifting is that, when it comes to fighting your way through, you can probably declare a fighting withdrawal with a change of facing to move around an enemy in the intervening melee. And because the intervening enemy can't follow you (being engaged with someone else) you can break off without suffering a free attack. (The enemy you're trying to move past could presumably follow you with his/her own fighting withdrawal.)

So in practice it becomes closer to "shift = half speed" then "shift = 1 sq", but you can't attack while shifting.

But that's imposing a fair bit of interpretation on an obscure passage. And the fighting withdrawal stuff is complicated by being in the PHB only and not the DMG. (Just as the parry stuff is.) I have a copy of Chainmail but have never read it through, and certainly never played it. I'm not (and never have been) a minis player. I can't remember exactly how we handled blocking/frontage back in the AD&D days - given it was "TotM" is suspect we just used the sort of common sense you described, and back then it would never have occurred to me to have an orc declare an "acrobatics check" to try and move through the front line (that was something that only thief-acrobats could do!, using jumping, evasion etc).

EDIT: I'm not sure why I think fighting withdrawal is half speed - is that a Moldvay-ism?

 

[pemerton]

Where things would get ambiguous was situations like say where 2 characters are engaged with a troll. Can the troll be said to 'engage' both of them, or is one simply free to move away? Do the 'parting shots' count as the other parties' normal attack routine, or can they make an entire EXTRA set of attacks on top of "from the back as if stunned" (which against a fighter with a shield is AT LEAST the equivalent of getting +5 to all your attacks, and probably more). Would parting shots be 'split' (IE if 2 guys retreat from a troll does it get C/C/B against BOTH OF THEM, or just 3 attacks split in some way, or does it even get to try to follow both).

The parting shots are free - that's in the passage I quoted. I think it gets the free routine against both (no "free action" limit).

The troll can engage both fighters, because the MM expressly says that trolls can split their attacks. Does that imply that monsters/characters without that sort of text (which is most of them) can't engage multiple foes? Dunno. My gut feel is that the troll text implies no multi-targeting from C/C/B-type routines. But fighter multiple attacks are clearly meant to allow multi-targeting. Which presumably implies multi-engaging? But then there is also the text in the obscure passage about singling out opponents (plural) and remaining locked in melee until one side is dead. That suggests that all adjacent figures are engaged, even if you can't attack them all.

Its also not clear in what sense missile fire for instance would 'cover a retreat'. If one character flees or 'disengages' is the opponent not still locked in melee given that it is now in pursuit? Is there any point at which missile fire is possible?

I don't see how missile fire can help "cover a retreat" - unless the opponent chooses not to pursue because they take cover instead.

If you disengage and aren't faster and the enemy pursues then confrontation ensues (per the evasion rules) - you will once again become "locked in melee" if the pursuer wins initiative, but if you get first initiative you can avoid again. I actually think that's not a terrible system for doing chases - better than 3E/4e (putting skill challenges to one side), because there isn't the problem that if you double move you can auto-outrun someone trying to attack you, but equally there's no auto-catch if movement rates are equal because you have to maintain pace and win initiative.

I don't think it's going to win any design awards, but as I said I think it's not terrible.

There are HUGE GAPS

<snip>

A perfectly reasonable reading of the rules would have it that you can only engage people that you end up within 10' of. Remember, movement and attacks are simultaneous (or near-simultaneous) in AD&D combat. Both sides plot their moves ahead, reveal them, initiative is checked, and the results are worked out, with the higher initiative party striking blows first (mostly, sort of, depending on which optional rules you use). 'Common sense' indicates that 2 opponents won't 'pass through' one another if they moved in from opposite directions, but AD&D doesn't even contain a rule, not even a suggestion, as to exactly where such opponents would end up, how to resolve just how close they came to each other if they're moving to different places at different rates from various directions, just how much faster you'd have to be than someone else to 'run around them' (assuming space exists, and how much would you need).

I agree with all this.

Again, even the 15' wide bridge held by 3 PCs isn't a clear case in AD&D where you can prevent the enemy from going past, and its entirely unclear how many of them you can stop or 'OA' on their way by. ENTIRELY unclear, not just "it depends a little bit on how you rules lawyer this" its UTTERLY unclear and completely up to the DM, who can very reasonably make any of several different rulings. REALLY, go run AD&D at a Con and see what happens, this stuff comes up all the time and it can only be resolved by the ancient "DM is always right" of 'rule zero'.

I don't have the con experience, but again I agree this is unclear because if they are just moving around rather than through than they don't get "locked in melee". The rules have a "close to striking range option" but no "move past opponent without entering melee option", which is what your bridge example involves.

In practice, I would expect most GMs to allow the bridge defenders to declare as their action "We hold the bridge and attack anyone who tries to pass" and as long as the people trying to pass come within 10' then they count as having close to striking range and we're now "locked in melee". Per the rules, no attack rolls would be possible at that point and we need to roll initiative to see who gets to attack first. But I suspect that most GMs (probably including me back when I used to run this system!) would allow the defenders to make their declared attacks, which would trigger complaints from the players of the character trying to move around, and thus would another AD&D-rules-dispute-at-the-table be born . . .