I'm going to run a 1e game

[SableWyvern]

I've been thinking long and hard about initiative for the last week or so, and I think I've settled on something that is: 1. Fairly simple, and 2. Pretty close to the by the book system.

- Initative is rolled for the group. Low is good.
- Characters using ranged weapons adjust their initiative based on Dex.
- Spell casters use the higher of their rolled initiative or the spell's casting time.
- Each 10% of charge movement used gives a charge time of 1. Chargers use the higher of their rolled iniative or the charge time (only relevant if competing against spell users and ranged attacks)
- All actions are carried out in initiative order, lowest to highest, with the exception that:
. - Blows struck during charges use weapon length to determine attack order.

Breaking Ties
- Combatants making melee attacks use weapon speed.
- Casters use casting time.
- Item users use activation time.
- Chargers use charge time (when charging spell-casters or item users)
- Ranged weapon wielders beat spell-casters, chargers and non-instant item users, and lose to meleeists and instant item users.

Charging is a little bit complex, but it will generally only occur once a combat at most, so shouldn't prove a real issue. The rest seems pretty straightforward to me.


Optional BtB Complication For Melee: When striking blows in a melee, combatants with three attacks routines go first, then those with two, then one and three together, then two, then three.

I'm iffy about that last part, simply because it gets complicated if you have someone with one routine attacking a spell caster while being attacked by someone with two routines. Given that monsters with multiple attacks pretty much exclusively have only a single routine, I don't think there's much of an issue just dumping the whole "staggered attack routine" thing.

 

[Chainsaw]

Potentially stupid question here.. All the old official modules I'm reading use a 1 square = 10 feet scale. If I'm using miniatures, should I assume that each miniature takes up a whole square in combat? I think the 1E DMG has some language on number attackers, flanking, etc. (maybe page 69?) that suggests this, but it's never actually pointed out. I mean, I'm not supposed to be converting to 5' squares for battle or anything, right? Unless I want that, of course.

 

[Obryn]

Potentially stupid question here.. All the old official modules I'm reading use a 1 square = 10 feet scale. If I'm using miniatures, should I assume that each miniature takes up a whole square in combat? I think the 1E DMG has some language on number attackers, flanking, etc. (maybe page 69?) that suggests this, but it's never actually pointed out. I mean, I'm not supposed to be converting to 5' squares for battle or anything, right? Unless I want that, of course.

Near as I can tell, it's as loose as you want to make it.

Technically, there's a "space required" field in the weapon table. If you want to get that detailed, you can fill up your 10' squares. Just put multiple people in the 10' square.

If you want to use a strict battle mat, there's certainly nothing wrong with a 5' scale, using pseudo-3e or 4e minis rules. I don't think that flanking makes a difference except for shields; 1e assumes that combat is very fluid and that everyone is moving around during the minute-long rounds.

Also, remember that when you're in a melee, BTB you don't get to pick which enemy you're attacking. It's randomly chosen, weighted by size. (Even deadlier, firing missiles into melee is randomly determined among both friends and enemies.)

-O

 

[Chainsaw]

Near as I can tell, it's as loose as you want to make it.

Technically, there's a "space required" field in the weapon table. If you want to get that detailed, you can fill up your 10' squares. Just put multiple people in the 10' square.

If you want to use a strict battle mat, there's certainly nothing wrong with a 5' scale, using pseudo-3e or 4e minis rules. I don't think that flanking makes a difference except for shields; 1e assumes that combat is very fluid and that everyone is moving around during the minute-long rounds.

Also, remember that when you're in a melee, BTB you don't get to pick which enemy you're attacking. It's randomly chosen, weighted by size. (Even deadlier, firing missiles into melee is randomly determined among both friends and enemies.)

-O

Cool, thanks. Well, we may go to 5' squares for battle mat so that I don't have the problem of placing two minis on one square. Also, we'll definitely be picking enemies for melee attacks in my 1E campaign.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

All the old official modules I'm reading use a 1 square = 10 feet scale. If I'm using miniatures, should I assume that each miniature takes up a whole square in combat?

The DMG suggests a "ground scale" of 3.33 ft to 1 inch (i.e. three 1 inch squares would be 10 feet on a battlemat). The space required rules offer a guideline for how many combatants might fit into a given area. Oh, although the AD&D rules don't mention it, the original D&D rules from Supplement I specify that the space required numbers apply to each side, so they're like a radius. Remember that those are guidelines, not hard-and-fast rules. Use common sense; for example, maybe in a certain situation a Fighter only needs room on his right side (sword-arm side).

In a 10' wide passage, three fighters with shields and spears or short swords could certainly fight abreast. A mace-wielding warrior might need to stand alone in the same passage, and someone with a whirling footman's flail might feel constrained by the "tight" space. Exactly how to handle limited space and broken "space required" restrictions is left up to the DM and the specific situation. Anything from a penalty to hit to "can't use that weapon here" might be in order.

As far as the figure diagrams in the DMG, remember that the main purpose of those is to show how many attackers might make attacks on a single combatant, and how many of those might get flank or rear attack bonuses. (This is a consideration for AD&D's abstract approach to mass melee, which doesn't assume a precise position, but rather an "engagement range" of 10'; you're assumed to be moving, maneuvering, and circling within the 1 min melee round unless constrained by terrain/walls or a desire to remain in one spot.)

 

[Obryn]

Cool, thanks. Well, we may go to 5' squares for battle mat so that I don't have the problem of placing two minis on one square. Also, we'll definitely be picking enemies for melee attacks in my 1E campaign.

I think the 3.33' squares might work, too. But really, it's whatever you find most convenient for your game. For AD&D, as I remember it, it's helpful to think outside the confines of the grid; think more in terms of what an actual person using such-and-such a weapon would need to do rather than determining an arbitrary space.

I'm going to be using an abstract combat system where you're basically in a melee or out of it (and there can be more than one melee). If I use minis, they won't be wedded to the grid.

I have a feeling that picking melee enemies was a very common house rule. I also have a feeling that many AD&D players never even noticed the actual rule, making it a de facto house rule. Personally, I am going to allow "picked" enemies at a penalty, unless targeting is simple (like an ogre among kobolds or a spellcasting wizard) or I decide otherwise.

I'd suggest keeping missile targeting random, though, FWIW. Or maybe allow picked targets at a penalty. Your call, though!

-O

 

[T. Foster]

The DMG (early on, the same section IIRC that recommends using only Official TSR Miniatures) suggests if you're using minis that you use a scale of 1" = 3.33' (so 3" = 10'). I like that scale a lot better than 1" = 5' because it allows 3 characters abroad in a 10' wide corridor (which is established elsewhere in the rules as the norm) and means you don't need to make all your rooms 40' x 60' (or larger) in order to allow people some room to maneuver.

The 1" = 10' scale is a carryover from Chainmail, where each figure represented a unit of 20 men (actually in Chainmail it was 1" = 10 yards, but when Dave Arneson moved the action indoors he also decreased the scale). This scale is actually convenient when you're not using minis because dungeon maps are typically drawn 1 square = 10' so if the party has a move rate of 6" they can move 6 squares in 1 round, if a weapon has a range of 8" it can fire at a target up to 8 squares away, and so on -- it makes things very easy to estimate. Once you start using individual-scale minis (instead of perhaps 1 figure representing the entire party), though, you'll definitely want to "zoom in" for more detail.

Note also, though, that the AD&D combat system actually probably works better if you don't use minis due to its level of abstraction (moving more than 10' into combat takes an entire round unless you charge but movement of less than 10' is free, missiles fired into melee hit random targets, attacks in melee hit random targets unless you specify otherwise, etc.). A mini placed in a specific square loses that sense of chaos and constant movement that the rules are meant to evoke. When I was running AD&D with minis (something I don't do anymore) in order to emphasize this I would occasionally shuffle the minis around. Playing without a grid/battlemat (maintaining the 3" = 10' scale but measuring distances with a ruler instead of counting squares) also helps.

 

[Chainsaw]

The DMG suggests a "ground scale" of 3.33 ft to 1 inch (i.e. three 1 inch squares would be 10 feet on a battlemat). The space required rules offer a guideline for how many combatants might fit into a given area. Oh, although the AD&D rules don't mention it, the original D&D rules from Supplement I specify that the space required numbers apply to each side, so they're like a radius. Remember that those are guidelines, not hard-and-fast rules. Use common sense; for example, maybe in a certain situation a Fighter only needs room on his right side (sword-arm side).

In a 10' wide passage, three fighters with shields and spears or short swords could certainly fight abreast. A mace-wielding warrior might need to stand alone in the same passage, and someone with a whirling footman's flail might feel constrained by the "tight" space. Exactly how to handle limited space and broken "space required" restrictions is left up to the DM and the specific situation. Anything from a penalty to hit to "can't use that weapon here" might be in order.

As far as the figure diagrams in the DMG, remember that the main purpose of those is to show how many attackers might make attacks on a single combatant, and how many of those might get flank or rear attack bonuses. (This is a consideration for AD&D's abstract approach to mass melee, which doesn't assume a precise position, but rather an "engagement range" of 10'; you're assumed to be moving, maneuvering, and circling within the 1 min melee round unless constrained by terrain/walls or a desire to remain in one spot.)

That's very, very helpful Phil. Thanks for taking the time to clarify. One additional question - so, if a combatant has a base movement of 12", then he could potentially move 12 of the 1 inch squares in a round?

I feel like I'm either misunderstanding rules or using them in unintended ways.

 

[Obryn]

That's very, very helpful Phil. Thanks for taking the time to clarify. One additional question - so, if a combatant has a base movement of 12", then he could potentially move 12 of the 1 inch squares in a round?

I feel like I'm either misunderstanding rules or using them in unintended ways.

Once again, that's a complex question, as I read it. (And remember - I'm just reading the game right now. I start playing it again this weekend.) These guys who've been playing for years will have a better answer than me. Anyway...

In a dungeon-exploring Turn (10 minutes) where you're being careful, mapping, listening carefully, briefly searching, etc. someone with a 12" movement can move 120'.

If they move briskly, they can move 10x this - 120' per minute-long round. No mapping is possible. Running doubles this.

In combat, you use the quicker scale of 120' per round, unless you're charging or fleeing, when you could move double that, or 240', max. (This, btw, equals 24' per segment if you're in a Surprise situation or want to be precise for casting times & whatnot.)

-O

 

[Chainsaw]

Once again, that's a complex question, as I read it. (And remember - I'm just reading the game right now. I start playing it again this weekend.) These guys who've been playing for years will have a better answer than me. Anyway...

In a dungeon-exploring Turn (10 minutes) where you're being careful, mapping, listening carefully, briefly searching, etc. someone with a 12" movement can move 120'.

If they move briskly, they can move 10x this - 120' per minute-long round. No mapping is possible. Running doubles this.

In combat, you use the quicker scale of 120' per round, unless you're charging or fleeing, when you could move double that, or 240', max. (This, btw, equals 24' per segment if you're in a Surprise situation or want to be precise for casting times & whatnot.)

-O

Forgive me for being dense, but.. if you're using the 120' per round for combat, then at 120' using 1'' square is 3.33', you could move 36 squares in a comat round?

I'm really just trying to figure out how the encumbrance rules correlate to movement per combat round, heh. Perhaps that's too granular for the system?