AD&D Initiative and Combat Table

[thedungeondelver]

Ahhhh, thanks!

Seems like that was the original intent for 1e- the Monster Manual only has things of those five alignments, plus a couple with "Neutral (evil tendencies)" or whatever.

Yes, there were some finalizations that went on between the publication of the MM and the PHB (and then the DMG). IIRR the "official word" was to treat the last published rulebook as the final arbiter of what the rule "should be".

 

[Mr. Patient]

I remember it being very fast. In the case of monsters, the DM usually just assigned an appropriate Dex on the spot. In play, it kind of encouraged a "common sense" approach to determining the ordering of events. I still do that, now. Sometimes I don't even call for initiative if the situation is pretty obvious.

I would agree that it made some sense, but it was also a bit dispiriting to have my 7 Dex fighting man act last every bloody time . The other part of the initiative system that I found bizarre was the fact that spells automatically went off first, no matter what, followed by missile weapons, and then melee (all explained rather confusingly in a combat example section). That made sleep, already somewhat overpowered, into pretty much the ultimate weapon.

I thought the strangest part of Holmes was the way weapons were handled. That is, everything was abstracted to 1d6 damage, but 2-H weapons went every other round. And you could throw two daggers in one round. I didn't find that weird until much later, but it does seem odd to have rules like that for a few weapons, given the highly abstract damage system.

You're right, that was equally weird. And it wasn't just thrown daggers; unless we missed a passage somewhere, you could use them in melee 2x/round as well. They were mechanically superior to any other weapon in the game, which naturally led to all our front-line fighters using them (except me; I'm not a munchkin ).

 

[buzz]

This is rich, coming from folks on a website dedicated to a "version" of D&D that requires two Dungeon Master's Guides.

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

 

[replicant2]

I love AD&D, but those initiative rules would make an MIT student cry.

 

[Morrus]

20 pages long!

Well, droppin the cartoons, credit list on eveyr page, etc., I'd say it's about half that. 10 pages or so.

Less than 3E by far.

 

[Morrus]

This is rich, coming from folks on a website dedicated to a "version" of D&D that requires two Dungeon Master's Guides.

It doesn't (I have only the one), and let's drop the antagonism, please. Feel free to point out the good points of AD&D, even feel free to point out the bad points of 3E, but attacking members here for their preferences is not on. Keep it directed at the game system, not the people, please. Thanks.

 

[buzz]

Well, droppin the cartoons, credit list on eveyr page, etc., I'd say it's about half that. 10 pages or so.

Less than 3E by far.

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.

 

[The Shaman]

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."

The 1e AD&D initiative rules are actually very simple: high roll wins, ties are simultaneous. Weapon speed factors come into play in a battle with another opponent armed with a weapon, or a spell-caster - in fact one can spend an entire evening battling dozens of monsters without ever calling upon the speed factor rules at all. In the case of opponents with a weapon, speed factors resolve initiative ties (which involves the terribly complex calculation of comparing two numbers to see who wins...) or open up the possibility of getting in one or two attacks before the opponent could strike (which meant that most characters and weapon-wielding monsters used faster weapons - not too many pikes or zweihänders in our dungeons).

The only time that this became even a little complex was with respect to spell-casters, which involved comparing weapon speed factor and casting time to the initiative roll. Do it a half-dozen times and it becomes second-nature - you'll never find yourself spending more than a few seconds on it again.

With these rules in mind, players and dungeon masters adjusted their combat tactics accordingly: if you want to take out spell-casters, use a light weapon like a short sword or dagger, and if you're a spell-caster, employ spells that only take a segment or two cast (or better yet, use a wand). It wasn't like we were switching weapons constantly and having to look up speed factors every time we threw down with an evil cleric. It was part of the (wait for it...) TACTICAL element of 1e combat.

 

[Hussar]

On needing 2 DMG's: I don't actually own one for 3.5. Been running 3.5 since it came out.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

It's not that bad, actually. That's the In-depth treatment; truth is, you can do with very closely (though not identically) with a 2-pager I created for a gameday a few years back.

Keep in mind the original was explained in only four pages - the expanded one is full of examples.

It may not be "THAT bad" but it's nothing even remotely resembling actual GOOD. After all, it's even worse than the wholly bizzare initiative system that was in use by the group I first started AD&D with, the Four-M system. Rounds were divided into 4 phases - Melee, Missile Fire, Magic, and then Movement. Each of these phases was then divided into segments. Initiative was, I think, a d20 roll modified by weapon speed and dex. All melee was resolved first, then all missile fire, etc. The Magic phase was wierd though - rather than use an initiative roll magic was further divided into 4 sub-phases with the actual casting time of the spell determining which of those 4 sub-phases your spell was activated in.

Needless to say it was a challenge to be a spellcaster since it was patently impossible to EVER cast a spell without every opponent first having the opportunity to hit you with weapons (and of course you were casting so your AC was at a penalty...). It was several years before I really started to think about how the rules actually worked, but when I did this was the FIRST thing that I convinced the DM had to be changed. I made the mistake of trying to convince him to use the ACTUAL AD&D rules. I'm sad to say that I had to admit that the 4-M system, while still being intolerable, could actually be UNDERSTOOD at a glance. I went over and OVER the AD&D system trying to make sense of it and figure out how it was actually supposed to work.

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.