BD&D Missile / Magic / Melee Phases clarification?

[Iosue]

@Iosue I'm asking because it has been a looooong time since I last played Basic, and because I'm trying to get a better feel for WHY it was designed as it was. Just getting clarification for myself, no implications about your level of awareness

I'm also trying to ascertain the advantages & drawbacks of a phased combat round....and the way BD&D does it specifically. That they are not readily apparent to me is only a reflection of me not having played Basic since I was a kid! Cut me some slack?

It's cool, I'm not trying to give you a hard time! I was just replying to the earlier post that suggested that I (and/or others?) was mistaken in my application of the order of combat.

Here are some more things to consider. OD&D had no rules for initiative, no combat sequence. It was all up to the DM to adjudicate things according to his own judgment. Holmes D&D introduced using Dex as initiative, but otherwise had no rules of order. AD&D's initiative system is legendarily baroque, one might even say rococo, and not suitable for a "basic" game. So Moldvay introduced a couple of handy sequences for a DM to refer to keep things moving quickly and in good order: the Order of Events in One Game Turn and the Combat Sequence. To an extent, the order of actions in the combat sequence is somewhat arbitrary, probably informed by Moldvay's experience wargaming. Here's a snippet of an article he wrote in Dragon when the Basic Set was released:

When I edited the D&D Basic rules, I tried to stress clarity, simplicity, and conciseness. .... Whenever possible, step-by-step instructions were given because that type of direction is easiest to understand.

In my game, it pretty much comes out as I indicated in my earlier post.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=20323]Quickleaf[/MENTION] - this topic came up a month or three ago, I think, and I shared some of your puzzlement.

I can understand phases - missile, then magic, then melee, or however it is structured - with initiative determining sequence within those phases. But I don't understand so well the logic of phases within the "Team A's turn, then Team B's turn" structure.

AD&D has a similar structure set out within the DMG - a series of phases for Team A, followed by Team B going through the same series of phases - though it has additional weirdness because the interaction between spell-casting speeds, weapon speeds and the segment structure is used to generate a type of "continuous initiative" when a caster confronts a melee weapon user.

 

[Quickleaf]

[MENTION=6680772]Iosue[/MENTION] Thanks for the link, I love getting insight into how the game was run before my time. Or at least before the time I was paying attention to anything besides dragons, knights, and magic.

[MENTION=20323]Quickleaf[/MENTION] - this topic came up a month or three ago, I think, and I shared some of your puzzlement.

I can understand phases - missile, then magic, then melee, or however it is structured - with initiative determining sequence within those phases. But I don't understand so well the logic of phases within the "Team A's turn, then Team B's turn" structure.

AD&D has a similar structure set out within the DMG - a series of phases for Team A, followed by Team B going through the same series of phases - though it has additional weirdness because the interaction between spell-casting speeds, weapon speeds and the segment structure is used to generate a type of "continuous initiative" when a caster confronts a melee weapon user.

The sequence in Basic is straight of war games IIRC: Move/Missile/Magic/Melee.

My guess from the very limited war gaming I've done is that having your side *have to* move before artillery requires tactical coordination to avoid friendly fire. And because magic might be cast to benefit your melee guys, and so naturallly that had to happen before the melee phase.

As for AD&D I never did understand the difference between weapon speed and spellcasting speed, so we just treats them both as modifiers to initiative. Looking back at it though, you'd think reach weapons in that system should have had better speed than they did to reflect their "attack first" advantage over non-reach melee wielders.

 

[ExploderWizard]

As for AD&D I never did understand the difference between weapon speed and spellcasting speed, so we just treats them both as modifiers to initiative. Looking back at it though, you'd think reach weapons in that system should have had better speed than they did to reflect their "attack first" advantage over non-reach melee wielders.

AD&D took reach weapons into account not with speed factor but by simply declaring that longer weapons strike first during a charge. During initial closing, longer weapons have the advantage. Once melee is joined, faster weapons prevail.

The D&D movement & melee system is too abstract to accurately reflect longer reach weapons keeping opponents at bay.

 

[Iosue]

AD&D took reach weapons into account not with speed factor but by simply declaring that longer weapons strike first during a charge. During initial closing, longer weapons have the advantage. Once melee is joined, faster weapons prevail.

The D&D movement & melee system is too abstract to accurately reflect longer reach weapons keeping opponents at bay.

The Mentzer edition of the Expert book does address this with the "spear combat" ability for fighters. If they enemy is approaching from more than 20 feet away (20 yards outdoors) before an attack, the fighter can "set the spear'. If the spear hits, it does double damage. But as is typical of D&D abstract combat, rather than giving the spear special initiative properties, a la AD&D, or reach properties, a la 3e/4e, it relies on the emergent abstract effect of this damage. It suddenly becomes a bad idea to engage fighters from more than 20 feet away. So you have to spend a turn between 20 ft and 5 ft, so you can approach without letting the fighter set the spear. But that opens you up to the possibility of the fighter advancing on you and spearing you with a regular attack...

Edit: Incidentally, I seem to recall some thread a while back saying that TSR-D&D didn't support the spear-and-board style fighter. I don't recall how it is in AD&D, but in D&D a spear is not a two-handed weapon, which means it can be used just fine with a shield. A pole arm, though, is a whole other ball of wax.