AD&D 1E Three Things that can't be Fixed in 1e AD&D

[fuindordm]

I think the relevant text regarding melee vs prolonged actions is on p.66 of the DMG which attempts to explain how to resolve a weapon attack vs spellcasting. This was so confusing that Gary Gygax wrote a Dragon article about it, if I remember correctly, which did little to clear up the issue.

Possible the worst line from the entire DMG :

"Compare the speed factor of the weapon with the number of segments which the spell will require to cast, to determine if the spell or weapon will be cast/strike first, subtracting the losing die roll on the initiative die roll from the weapon factor and treating negative results as positive."

My own approach is what makes sense to me after synthesizing various commentaries on initiative, and I consider charging another example of a prolonged action alongside spellcasting. But as I mentioned earlier, I'm not really interested in textual analysis.

 

[fuindordm]

Also, can y'all give the probability discussion a rest or take it offline? I'm a physicist and data scientist, I understand both your points, but it's polluting the thread and getting boring.

 

[Jahydin]

Also, can y'all give the probability discussion a rest or take it offline? I'm a physicist and data scientist, I understand both your points, but it's polluting the thread and getting boring.

Sorry. Engineer myself and I genuinely like talking math. AD&D is what set me on my STEM path, so I suppose I have a soft spot for it.

Moving past bell curves and onto solutions though, the reason % Strength exists was to boost the power levels of Fighters. I would do away with it and just give Fighters a bonus to damage as they level. Maybe + 1 starting, then another + 1 every 4 levels after.

As for the other stats, the initial expectation of D&D was you rolled up a character who was on average, "average". Then AD&D comes along and the expectation changes to rolling up characters who were "above-average", but to get that result you had to cheat a bit. Using alternative stat generation methods and tossing charters without at least two 15 are both suggested in writing, for instance. So following that guidance, shouldn't be a problem generating viable characters RAW.

 

[fuindordm]

Moving past bell curves and onto solutions though, the reason % Strength exists was to boost the power levels of Fighters. I would do away with it and just give Fighters a bonus to damage as they level. Maybe + 1 starting, then another + 1 every 4 levels after

So, even less bonus damage than the monk?

I think we all agree that the fighter group deserves something, and that gatekeeping a class ability behind an 18 strength was a bad idea!

 

[Celebrim]

So, even less bonus damage than the monk?

You have no idea how much I hate the monk. A rewrite of the class would be a gutting of it. I didn't allow it in 1e. I didn't allow it in 3e. If you wanted to play a monk in 3e, I would have directed you to the fighter class. If someone had asked in 1e I would have said, "It properly belongs in an OA campaign", but I hated the class even within that context. Oh I could hardly enumerate the ways I hate that class.

I think we all agree that the fighter group deserves something, and that gatekeeping a class ability behind an 18 strength was a bad idea!

Fighters are a weird class in 1e AD&D, and arguably the strongest class in the game. They seem to get nothing, or seemed to until weapon specialization came along and just bumped them immediately to S tier on that basis alone. But also, they get everything. Because while they are a linear class, they are the only linear class that actually gains "+1" per level, and by that I mean in everything. Saves go up by +1 per level. To hit goes up by +1 per level. They have the fastest acquisition of weapon proficiencies, and by RAW the fastest acquisition of NWPs as well because RAW doesn't disassociate those things. With a functional NWP system that actually turns them into the skill monkey class as well. They level up faster than their subclasses, which matters because of that whole +1 per level thing, and not all of their subclasses get their special weapon specialization ability and none of them make as good use of it. The magic item tables are skewed to providing them gear as if M-U were more motivated to clothe fighters than equip themselves.

And the bonus at 18 strength thing shouldn't overlook that they also have a huge bonus compared to any other class at 17 constitution. Unlike 3e, you can't get non-squishy as a non-fighter class just by having enough constitution. M-U and thieves are doomed to squishiness because CON bonuses are capped for them.

 

[TwoSix]

Sorry. Engineer myself and I genuinely like talking math. AD&D is what set me on my STEM path, so I suppose I have a soft spot for it.

People into old versions of D&D are nerds, news at 11.

 

[Mannahnin]

In AD&D 1E and 2E you count UP.

Where does it say that? High roll wins, which implies you're counting down.

Implies in 3rd edition, I guess? That's the first time D&D had an initiative countdown. In D&D and AD&D initiative was side-based. Standard Initiative in 2E is still side-based, but with a d10. "Low roll wins initiative. If more than two sides are involved in combat, the remaining sides act in order of initiative." (p94 of the original printing 2E PH, or p124 of the revised printing). The Individual Initiative optional rule (p95 / 126) lays out a procedure where each combatant rolls and modifies their own roll based on their own action, and are arranged in ascending order again (counting up, functionally).

When exactly the initiative losers act in AD&D 1E initiative is a somewhat complex topic and depends on what they're doing, because 1E is designed to create special situations where long spells can be interrupted by charging melee attackers, quicker spells, devices, or missiles even if the caster of the long spell won initiative. It's pretty darn complex, but Celebrim linked earlier in this thread a post explaining AD&D 1E initiative step-by-step:

Post in thread 'AD&D/OSRIC: How did initiative work?'

Jun 3, 2025

To prove a point, here is Addict without examples of play and all the painstaking reference cut out. 4 Pages.

# ADDICT - LITE

Compiled by David M. Prata (“DMPrata”), shortened by aiouh
Version 2.2 (19 March 2006)
ENCOUNTERS, COMBAT, AND INITIATIVE

I. Determine if either or both parties are surprised.

A. Normally, a d6 is rolled for each party. A roll of 1 or 2 indicates surprise.

1. Some individuals, notably rangers, are surprised less often — 1 in 6 (162/3%) less often, in the case of rangers. This benefit accrues to the entire party.
2. Some individuals, notably rangers, surprise...

• aiouh

• 
• 

It's also whacked because for some inexplicable reason spellcasting works on a 10-segment round where everything else works on a 6-segment round.

I think everything is generally happening on a 10 segment round of 6 second segments. Rolling a d6 doesn't mean there are only 6 segments, counterintuitive though that might be.

The by the book 1E initiative rules say that the side rolling higher acts first, starting on the segment indicated by the die result of the losing side. So if the PCs roll a 6 and the bad guys roll a 3, the PCs win and start acting on segment 3. If the PCs roll a 6 and the bad guys roll a 5, the PCs go first and start acting on 5.

Do you know where it says this in the 1e PH or DMG? I don't remember that being specified.

Damn fine question, and I've probably oversimplified. I'm re-reading to refresh myself now.

The closest I'm seeing in the text to that plain statement is on DMG p65, under Spell Casting During Melee, item 2, "Attacks directed at spell casters will come on that segment of the round shown on their opponent's or their own side's initiative die, whichever is applicable. (If the spell caster's side won the initiative with a roll of 5, the attack must come then, not on the opponent's losing roll of 4 or less). Thus, all such attacks will occur on the 1st-6th segments of the round."

And on p66-67 Other Weapon Factor Determinants: "The speed factor of a weapon also determines when the weapon strikes during the course of the round with respect to opponents who are engaged in activity other than striking blows. Thus, suppose side A, which has achieved initiative (action) far the round, has a magic-user engaged in casting a spell. Compare the speed factor of the weapon with the number of segments which the spell will require to cast to determine if the spell or the weapon will be cast/strike first, subtracting the losing die roll on the initiative die roll from the weapon factor and treating negative results as positive. Example: A sword with a factor of 5 (broad or long) is being used by an opponent of a magic user attempting to cast a fireball spell (3 segment casting time). If the sword-wielding attacker was represented by a losing initiative die roll of 1,the spell will be cast prior to the sword's blow. A 2 will indicate that the spell and the blow are completed simultaneously. A 3-5 will indicate that the blow has a chance of striking (if a successful "to hit" roll is made) before the spell is cast, arriving either as the spell is begun or during the first segment of its casting. Suppose instead that a dagger were being employed. It has a speed factor of only 2, so it will strike prior to spell completion if the initiative roll which lost was 1-4 (the adjusted segment indicator being 1, 0, 1, 2 respectively) and simultaneously if the die score was a 5. If the weapon being employed was a two-handed sword (or any other weapon with a speed factor of 10, or 9 for that matter) there would be no chance far the reacting side to strike the spell caster prior to completion of the fireball. Note that even though a spell takes but 1 segment to complete, this is 6 seconds, and during that period a reacting attacker might be able to attack the magic-user or other spell caster prior to actual completion of the spell! If combat is simultaneous, there is no modification of the weapon speed factor."

More generally, individual segments don't get counted unless it matters for special cases - casting spells if the caster's side won or tied initiative, or melee attacks on a caster after a charge move, which delay the attack by 1 segment per 10th of the charger's movement they have to use to cross the distance and get within 10'/engage the target.

 

[Celebrim]

@Mannahnin : Good informative post, but I do just want to note how incoherent it is in the fiction that the guy casting Fireball has to stand their dancing slowly and chanting for 18 seconds, and a guy with a two-handed sword is simply too slow to strike him before he finishes.

There is a huge disconnect between the apparently frantic action implied by the initiative rules, and the slow-motion combats implied by the round/turn lengths that were adopted in presumably from what made sense for mass combat. This bothered me immensely back in the day, and I readily welcomed the six second round of 3e even as I mourned the loss of segments and casting times. I did repeatedly consider bringing back casting time and segments to 3e in order to provide a check on casters (who were OP in the 3e RAW because all the checks on them had been removed and they'd been buffed) but avoided it because 3e could already be complex, whereas things like "who hits first" and "weapon vs. AC modifiers" were really the only complexities/granularities you had going in 1e combat to provoke tactical choices and stop combat from being just hit point burn downs.

 

[fuindordm]

@Mannahnin : Good informative post, but I do just want to note how incoherent it is in the fiction that the guy casting Fireball has to stand their dancing slowly and chanting for 18 seconds, and a guy with a two-handed sword is simply too slow to strike him before he finishes.

Again with the caveat that this is just my personal interpretation:

I think the intent is that a PC who starts the round already in melee simply cannot cast spells--they are too distracted by defending themselves.

This situation modela what to do if a back-line caster is potentially reachable by a melee combatant during the round: determine which segments contain the prolonged spellcasting action, then based on the losing side's initiative and movement speed decide if the opponent gets there in time.

I don't see any logical reason to bring in weapon speed as a factor. If the caster starts to defend themselves, they lose the spell. If they try to complete the spell they are defenseless and I would give the opponent at minimum a free attack in the same segment they arrive, without Dex bonus to AV and at +4 to hit.

 

[Mannahnin]

@Mannahnin : Good informative post, but I do just want to note how incoherent it is in the fiction that the guy casting Fireball has to stand their dancing slowly and chanting for 18 seconds, and a guy with a two-handed sword is simply too slow to strike him before he finishes.

For sure.