Spell interruption rules in AD&D (and evasion/pursuit rules)

[MerricB]

Does anyone have memories of resolving evasion in AD&D? How did it work out?

I've used them a few times in my current AD&D game. They work, although often the speed of the monsters far outstrips that of the players.

I wrote a cleaned-up version of the rules. I've attached it below.

View attachment Pursuit and Morale.pdf

(The Morale rules in the document are derived from Basic D&D, because the AD&D ones don't work very well. And are incompatible with Bless!)

Cheers!

 

[pemerton]

I wrote a cleaned-up version of the rules. I've attached it below.

Thanks. In your version the pursuers can never catch the pursued if they're not faster. What do you think of the "fail by more than 20%" variation I mentioned (as an interpretation of the "chance is less than 0%" rule)?

The Morale rules in the document are derived from Basic D&D, because the AD&D ones don't work very well. And are incompatible with Bless!

Naturally! The bard inspiration rules suggest that (if you are using the AD&D rules) the bonus to morale should be +10%.

 

[MerricB]

Thanks. In your version the pursuers can never catch the pursued if they're not faster. What do you think of the "fail by more than 20%" variation I mentioned (as an interpretation of the "chance is less than 0%" rule)?

It seems fair enough, based on the basic percentages, although I wonder if it's just too high a chance - alternatively it could be interpreted as if the evasion chance is <=0%, then the pursuers should catch them. Of course, there will come a time when the endurance of the pursuer/pursued should come into effect...

One also wonders how random encounters may affect things.

Consider the chase by Gimli, Legolas and Aragorn of the orcs in The Two Towers; I think that's what the rule is aiming at!

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

For comparison, here are the original rules from OD&D for evasion and pursuit.

View attachment Original DnD Pursuit.pdf

Cheers!

 

[Scrivener of Doom]

The biggest problem AD&D has is that it was, at no point during its writing, a complete system. Both the Monster Manual and Player's Handbook get away with a lot because Gygax isn't trying to explain how the rules actually work. There are hints, but the actual systems are meant on the DMG. Which then doesn't actually give most of the systems in a coherent form.

This is, in fact, the way that Gygax developed D&D. Every single one of his rulebooks relies on what has come before. To fully appreciate AD&D, you need to know how OD&D worked. To understand OD&D, you need to understand Chainmail. And to understand Chainmail, you need to understand the rules surrounding miniature gaming at the time.

(That said, Chainmail may be the most coherent of the rules. Possibly). (snip)

Oh yeah, I'm very much aware of that. I remember even reading the small rules additions/explanations in modules to see if they shed any light on the rules or set a precedent that could be used elsewhere. (AD&D: the quest for clarity.)

Of course, all of this made a further mockery of Gary's mindless "one true way" Dragon editorials because his inability to craft a coherent, non-contradictory set of rules meant that there wasn't "one true way" to actually follow as even this single thread has already shown.

(snip) (I wonder what the so-called Rules Editors at the time were doing... especially with the DMG).

Frank Mentzer once commented that his colleagues were really happy that he was selected to assist Gary with the unfinished, execrable, and severely over-rated Temple of Elemental Evil because they were all frightened to edit or otherwise assist with Gary's work because he didn't take kindly to any sort of criticism.

In other words, I suspect the rules editors were just trying to keep their lord and master happy.

Back on topic, I've looked at the "theatre-of-the-mind"-inspired combat rules from 13th Age a few times and wondered if they might provide some inspiration for a rewrite of the AD&D combat rules into something clear, cogent, coherent (ie, non-Gygaxian), and still grid- and mini-free?

 

[MerricB]

Also, if Gandalf had been casting a spell with a casting time of 6 or greater, it won't go off until the next round, a fact people seldom mention when discussing 1e casters as overpowered.

Well, the reason is that it isn't actually spelt out in the rules that it works that way. I've certainly seen that interpretation, but equally I've seen the interpretation that spells take effect in the segment of the round as determined by their casting time. ADDICT uses the latter interpretation.

Thus, if you have a magic-user casting Magic Missile and another magic-user casting Fireball, the magic-user casting Magic Missile will always get their spell off first.

However, if both spells have the same casting time, then the initiative die roll determines which spell starts first.

Personally, I dislike the ruling that splits spell-casting over two rounds.

Cheers!

 

[pemerton]

For comparison, here are the original rules from OD&D for evasion and pursuit.

One also wonders how random encounters may affect things.

In OD&D quite a bit, it seems, with the turns being measured in days and half-days.

Whereas in AD&D they're measured in hours, which doesn't really engage the wilderness wandering monster rules unless the chase goes on for quite a while.

 

[Hussar]

Dragon[/I] editorials because his inability to craft a coherent, non-contradictory set of rules meant that there wasn't "one true way" to actually follow as even this single thread has already shown.

/snip

Heh, looking at just JRRNeiklot and MerricB we see completely different interpretations of something as basic as initiative which has all sorts of implications on the game.

I've come to realise that the D&D I played from about 1980 to 1990 may have used D&D books on the table, but, it only tangentially resembled the actual rules in those books.

 

[MerricB]

Heh, looking at just JRRNeiklot and MerricB we see completely different interpretations of something as basic as initiative which has all sorts of implications on the game.

I've come to realise that the D&D I played from about 1980 to 1990 may have used D&D books on the table, but, it only tangentially resembled the actual rules in those books.

Indeed. There was a system of initiative quite common amongst the AD&D tournament modules I saw in the 80s in Australia that rolled 1d4 for the spell-caster's initiative to see when the spell began to be cast with the end being that roll + casting time. I can't remember all the details, it must be said. I've got a small suspicion it may have been described in a Dragon Magazine article, but I haven't seen the system recently.

The advent of D&D Basic as edited by Tom Moldvay was rather a significant development in the history of D&D. I believe that a lot of DMs who began with that set used its initiative system as the basis of their play of AD&D.

It should be noted that original D&D relied on Chainmail for its initiative system. Chainmail actually had two systems, depending on whether you were discussing armies or individual combat. I'll have a blog entry later tonight on the topic.

Cheers!

 

[pemerton]

original D&D relied on Chainmail for its initiative system. Chainmail actually had two systems, depending on whether you were discussing armies or individual combat.

To fully appreciate AD&D, you need to know how OD&D worked. To understand OD&D, you need to understand Chainmail. And to understand Chainmail, you need to understand the rules surrounding miniature gaming at the time.

(That said, Chainmail may be the most coherent of the rules. Possibly).

I have a copy of Chainmail, in a white box "special collector's edition" of the OD&D books. I have dipped into it, but as a non-wargamer (and hence, even more-so, a non-early-70s-American-Midwest-wargamer) I find it quite hard to follow.

Perhaps I'll have a look to see if I can work out its initiative systems.