D&D 1E Just got done running some 1e

[Libramarian]

For attack rolls with descending AC I like to say it's a hit if the d20 result is from THAC0-20 or from 1-AC. This is mathematically equivalent and actually even easier than ascending AC and BAB.

 

[Celebrim]

I've used the weapons vs armor modifiers for several years. Taking the idea from a poster on Dragonsfoot, I just used 4 armor types: none, leather, chain & plate.

That's reasonable. I tweaked the numbers a bit as well.

It worked and it added a nice variety to the weapons.

It also to a certain extent adds some balance to the weapons, particularly with a small amount of tweaking. Longsword versus Morningstar becomes a much more interesting question, for example. Weapons like Bec de Corbin's suddenly make sense and are interesting. Halberds become actually pretty good. Maces were a reasonable knightly weapon, just like in real life. The only problems I had were axe's were too weak and two-handed swords too strong, but all in all I loved the system.

However, we've recently dropped the rule. With 6 PCs and 3 henchmen, plus limited session time on a week's night, every saved second count for us. We dropped individual initiative as well.

The problem with dropping individual initiative is that it is hugely unbalancing, especially if you've also dropped (or have never used) the rule that says claw/claw/bite or multiple attacks don't go on the same segment, but alternate. If one side gets in all of its attacks first in D&D, it's a massive massive advantage.

As for weapons vs. AC modifiers, I found that it sped up play rather than slowed it provided, as I suggested, that you take the time prior to a session to write out a little 'to hit' table for each character. What slows down play is taking time to do mental arithmetic to figure out whether or not you hit. So you see PC's rolling a 16, then mentally adding, "Ok +2 for weapon specialization that's 18, and +1 for strength that's 19, and +2 for my magic sword that's 21... and errmm is that it... ok '21'. Does that hit?" And he'll do the same darn thing the next round, or even for the next throw. That is lethal to the speed of play whether or not you are using 'weapon vs. AC modifiers'. But if I create a chart for Tim's longsword +2, it's going to be stable for many sessions of play and all Tim has to do is report what he rolled knowing that I've already figured in both his +5 to hit and his weapon vs. AC modifier. When I did that it dramatically sped up play at my table compared to the usual method of trying to remember all the bonuses and leaving it up to the players to perform the arithmetic.

 

[MerricB]

The problem with dropping individual initiative is that it is hugely unbalancing, especially if you've also dropped (or have never used) the rule that says claw/claw/bite or multiple attacks don't go on the same segment, but alternate.

Erm...

Not quite.

A monster using a claw/claw/bite attack routine performs all of its attacks together.

A NPC or PC attacking twice a round will attack first in the round then last in the round. (Of course, once you have two fighters with multiple attacks, when they attack in relation to each other still depends on initiative).

The definition of "attack routine" and how it all interacts is on pages 62-3 of the DMG.

If you haste a polar bear against a first level fighter, the polar bear will strike first with its claw/claw/bite routine, then the fighter makes his one attack, then the polar bear strikes last with its claw/claw/bite routine.

Cheers!

 

[Celebrim]

A monster using a claw/claw/bite attack routine performs all of its attacks together.

The definition of "attack routine" and how it all interacts is on pages 62-3 of the DMG.

Interesting. I think I may have been misreading that entry for the last 30 years. I always read it as if claw/claw/bite was one example of a multiple attack routine and a fighter with two attacks was another example of a multiple attack routine. Now that you point it out, I think you are right that its trying to say that 'claw/claw/bite' is a single routine that may be repeated multiple times, but I'm fairly sure I never treated it that way except rather early in my 1e career.

 

[Yora]

For attack rolls with descending AC I like to say it's a hit if the d20 result is from THAC0-20 or from 1-AC. This is mathematically equivalent and actually even easier than ascending AC and BAB.

They are all mathmatical equivalent. But I still don't understand how THAC0 works, trying to figure out your description.

 

[Mark CMG]

I play a lot of different games over the course of the year but 1E AD&D is one I come back to again and again. It might be in part because I know plenty of folks that already play and when we're together it doesn't need to be taught. But there are also plenty of games I've played often that I cannot simply pick up and play again without a bit of re-learning. Lots of fun!

 

[Libramarian]

They are all mathmatical equivalent. But I still don't understand how THAC0 works, trying to figure out your description.

Well THAC0 is a character stat that improves with level. It's analogous to base attack bonus. It's the number you need to roll to hit AC 0. Because each point of AC greater than 0 makes the attack roll easier by 1, you can find what you need to roll to hit any AC by subtracting it from THAC0. So if your THAC0 is 17, your number to hit AC 1 would be 16. If the AC is 5, you need to roll a 12, etc.

My little trick is to add the additional chances to hit to the bottom end of the d20 range instead of modifying THAC0. So if your THAC0 is 17 and you need to hit AC 5, I say it is a hit if you roll 17 or greater, or 5 or less. So generally if the player rolls high, they compare the result to their THAC0 to determine if it was a hit. If they roll low, I compare it to the enemy's AC to determine if it was a hit.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Well THAC0 is a character stat that improves with level. It's analogous to base attack bonus. It's the number you need to roll to hit AC 0. Because each point of AC greater than 0 makes the attack roll easier by 1, you can find what you need to roll to hit any AC by subtracting it from THAC0. So if your THAC0 is 17, your number to hit AC 1 would be 16. If the AC is 5, you need to roll a 12, etc.

My little trick is to add the additional chances to hit to the bottom end of the d20 range instead of modifying THAC0. So if your THAC0 is 17 and you need to hit AC 5, I say it is a hit if you roll 17 or greater, or 5 or less. So generally if the player rolls high, they compare the result to their THAC0 to determine if it was a hit. If they roll low, I compare it to the enemy's AC to determine if it was a hit.

I've done a similar thing in ascending-AC systems too: The kobold has +2 to hit, so you roll a d20. The number you get is the attack result, except a 1 or 2 counts as a 21 or 22. No math required. The only tricky part is keeping everyone honest about it (and how to handle crits/fumbles, if you do that sort of thing).

 

[howandwhy99]

I'm thrilled to hear you're having a great time running AD&D again. I know it should be boring, but rolling up random monsters and treasure to fill up a randomly generated area is still a thrill for me. AD&D has a lot of interesting tidbits that simply were shaved off in later versions of the game.

Nope; that particular bit of rules minutiae is too big of a PITA for me to implement.

I think the above is part of the reason why, but I totally support you for not using them. I believe the game was never supposed to be some completed at publication ruleset, but a collection of rules for each DM to select from even differing campaign to campaign. I mean, maybe you try Weapons vs. Armor Type for a 1-shot, maybe you don't. But no one's beholden to run them because they are in the book. It's almost entirely suggestions IMHO.

 

[pemerton]

For attack rolls with descending AC I like to say it's a hit if the d20 result is from THAC0-20 or from 1-AC. This is mathematically equivalent and actually even easier than ascending AC and BAB.

Neat trick.

Something I've been thinking of recently is that you could change the charts into a to-hit bonus (+0 for Normal Men and 1st level thieves and MUs, +1 for 1st level clerics and fighter, and stepping up as appropriate) and then saying you hit if the roll + to-hit bonus + AC is > 20.

Another odd feature of 1st ed AD&D - rather than an auto-hit, a roll of 20 counts as a 25 on the die. (Is there a rule that a 1 is an auto-miss?)