AD&D Initiative and Combat Table

[buzz]

The 1e AD&D initiative rules are actually very simple: high roll wins, ties are simultaneous.

The document in the OP seems to kind of contradict this.

But... I don't want to start another 3e vs. 1e debate. Let's just say we disagree and leave it alone.

 

[Raven Crowking]

1e was a glorious mess. Within that mess was a metric dorkload of fun. How you approached that mess defined the kind of fun your group got out of it. Anecdotal evidence shows that said approaches varied wildly; some cleaned up a little, some cleaned up a lot. The cleaning itself seems to be the only constant.

QFT

 

[The Shaman]

The document in the OP seems to kind of contradict this.

"Determine initiative for the round by rolling a d6 for each side. The higher of the two rolls is said to possess the initiative for that melee round....Ties usually indicate that attacks occur simultaneously." - ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS® INITIATIVE AND COMBAT TABLE, v. 2.2, compiled by DMPrata, dated 19 March 2006.

That is the document you referenced in your first post, isn't it?

But... I don't want to start another 3e vs. 1e debate. Let's just say we disagree and leave it alone.

I don't want to take part in a debate either, but I'm tired of watching poster after poster present erroneous or distorted information to support their (usually negative) opinions of 1e AD&D.

I don't care if you or anyone else doesn't like 1e, but for heaven's sake, please make some attempt at getting the rules straight instead of offering anecdote, assumption, or distortion as fact (such as claiming that the initiative rules are "ten pages long").

 

[thedungeondelver]

While I would play in an AD&D game now in a hearbeat I would still campaign long and hard for the use of ANY initiative system but 1E AD&D's.

If you had a competent DM why would you care?

I'm not being snarky, but why would it matter if the DM kept things flowing? "Party's surprised". or "Party has initiative" or "Monsters go first".

 

[Raven Crowking]

We have different ideas about what constitutes "nigh-unplayable," buzz - when I read posts about three or four round 3e combats that take an hour to resolve, or of 3e dungeon masters using egg or chess timers to speed up getting each player's actions completed, that fits my definition of "nigh-unplayable."

Also QFT.

 

[buzz]

I don't care if you or anyone else doesn't like 1e, but for heaven's sake, please make some attempt at getting the rules straight instead of offering anecdote, assumption, or distortion as fact (such as claiming that the initiative rules are "ten pages long").

A. The initiative rules in the document are ten pages long. Nobody said anything about what was in the DMG.

2. I never said anything about not liking 1e.

EDIT:

and) You can imagine that I find claims about 3e "requiring two DMGs" or egg-timers, or always resulting in tediously long combat which of course never happened in 1e equally tiresome. Seriously, people: dragonsfoot.org.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Could we please not drag this thread down into a "edition X sucks" quagmire? Especially with strawman stuff like this.

Said with full knowledge, of course, that nearly anyone reading your OP would belive that this already was an "edition X sucks" thread (in this case, where edition X is 1e).

Morrus, those 10 pages (13, if you count the helpful tables at the end) are just the initiative rules. The whole combat chapter in 3.5 is only 20 or so.

When I look at this document, I see a whole lot of white space, a lot of citations, and a large number of examples. The document starts with surprise and encounter distance rules, and does not address initiative until page 4. To be generous, let us say that initiative begins with item III, rather than item IV. The font appears to be size 8.

I also note that these initiative rules are designed to cover all special cases, as well as a large number of related combat rules (such as "Encumbered creatures cannot charge" and the rules relating to the effects of charging on AC). This would be as though the Initiative rules in 3e listed every special case that could effect init, including those from every splatbook (if any).

When I performed a Cut & Paste, ignoring citations, the Initiative rules took less than 4 full pages, even before I fixed the formatting. Word count lists 3,069 words (including all examples). "Examples" in this context include things like

Yrag eyed his elven companion skeptically. “Specialists? Bah! In my day, we didn’t have no stinkin’ specialists. All weapons did the same amount of damage. You either knew how to use one, or you didn‘t.”

Just then, a group of gnolls rounded a bend up ahead. Neither side was surprised, but the elf had an arrow nocked and readied, and loosed it before Yrag even knew what was happening. To Yrag’s astonishment, the elf fired two more arrows thereafter, hitting and killing three gnolls. “Gee, I only got two with my sword. Tell me about this specialization thing again…”​

which are clearly there more for fun than for any elucidation of the rules.

Let's say that we dump the examples and examine just the rules. I am now down to 2 pages (still without fixing the formatting, which is causing lines to split) and 1,568 words. At this point, I have not removed any "related information" included in the initiative rules, such as "6. The spell caster cannot use his or her dexterity bonus to avoid being hit during spell casting; doing so interrupts the spell." and "7. Any successful attack, or non-saved-against attack, upon the spell caster interrupts the spell."

I will certainly agree that this is still more work than should be required for rolling initiative, it is certainly not 10 pages worth of initiative rules. By ignoring page content, and focusing on the number of pages used (how large is the combat chapters in the 3.5 PHB & DMG, combined, and in what font size, and how many words?) it becomes clear how wrong the assertation buzz made above is.

Strawman stuff, indeed.

But... I don't want to start another 3e vs. 1e debate. Let's just say we disagree and leave it alone.

If "starting another 3e vs. 1e debate" isn't the purpose of the OP, then I don't know what is....unless it is simply to make a statement about 1e and hope that no one will answer that statement (and hence, no debate ).

I certainly agree with buzz when he says that "1e was a glorious mess." However, this thread seems to exist merely to make it seem as though 1e was a larger mess....and far less glorious....than it acutally was/is.


RC

 

[Morrus]

I played 1E for years...and enjoyed it immesnsely. I then played 2E for years. I enjoyed that immensely. Because I enjoyed those editions immensely, I took a look at 3E, which I've played for years, too. I enjoy that immensely, too. I sure I'll enjoy 4E immensely.

It's not a competition.

 

[Raven Crowking]

A. The initiative rules in the document are ten pages long. Nobody said anything about what was in the DMG.

In the document, from page 4-10, but the amount of page 4 not including init rules is about the same as that on page 10....so about 5 pages. Of course, again, that is a lot of white space, and a fair amount of non-init rules and examples included for fun, clarity, and completeness.

RC

 

[buzz]

However, this thread seems to exist merely to make it seem as though 1e was a larger mess....and far less glorious....than it acutally was/is.

Actually, this thread was good-natured fun remembering the incontrovertibly wacky eccentricities of 1e... but then people had to start ruining it.

I even said the PDF made me want to run it, and I'm still getting .

This hobby makes me very sad sometimes.