AD&D Initiative and Combat Table

[Raven Crowking]

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

Well, the one thing that is true about the internet is that no one can determine your "tone" by listening to your voice. Hence, a lot of things said tongue-in-cheek might not be taken that way by readers.

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

Actually, your exact words were "I keep toying with running a by-the-book AD&D1e game, if only because we never really used the RAW when I was a kid. This document, however, gives me pause." -- which is nearly the exact opposite of saying that the PDF made you want to run it.

When Henry suggested a simpler version containing the same rules without examples, but with better organization, your response was

Only two posts to get to, "Well, if you change X..."

1e: The game that launched a thousand house rules.

which, again, seems a lot more like "1e sucks" than "Man, those were some wacky, but fun days, weren't they?" Even your emphasis on the word incontrovertably is bound to get a response from some people who still enjoy/run/play 1e. Especially when taken in the context of your posts in other threads.

I agree that 3e has a better ruleset than 1e overall (there are still some 1e rules I port into 3e), but I find it flabbergasting that anyone as smart as you would have started this thread without knowing what the responses would be like. If you say you didn't forsee that people might defend 1e against the incorrect or misleading idea that 1e requires 10 pages of rules to cover initiative then I have to believe you....after all, Cthulhu knows that I have written some things that, in retrospect, weren't Front Of The Class ideas.

And, I am glad to hear that you are apparently a fan of 1e. As Morrus wisely said "It's not a competition."




RC

 

[The Shaman]

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.

QFT - and thank you for saving me the trouble of answering this myself.

I understand that some gamers never read the rules when they learned to play 1e AD&D, or perhaps read them and misunderstood some of what they read, or have simply forgotten many of those rules over time, and together this colors the views of some gamers toward the game. Some of these gamers go on to make erroneous claims about what was in (or wasn't in) those rules based on incomplete knowledge or faulty recollection - that's a simple mistake, one readily corrected by reference of the rule(s) in question.

Misrepresenting or distorting the rules to support a misleading conclusion is something else altogether.

I've heard all sorts of mistaken and misleading statements offered about 1e AD&D here on ENWorld, and I have tried to correct them where I can - I have no problem with valid criticism for any edition of Dungeons and Dragons, but it's annoying to see abundant errors or deliberate disinformation served up as fact over and over again.

I think experience as a miniatures war gamer offered a huge leg-up on understanding the nuanced tactical combat system of 1e AD&D - unfortunately gamers who say that 1e combat was nothing but "trading swings" missed out on a great game, IMHO, and I think a lot of 3e players would benefit from knowing how much of the tactical game they know and enjoy is built upon foundations set down in 1e AD&D.

I'm not trying to make converts out of anyone, or suggest that one edition as better than another - I don't have a horse in this race, unless that horse is Accuracy. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but can we all agree that informed criticism is preferable to erroneous assumptions or misleading arguments?

 

[buzz]

When Henry suggested a simpler version containing the same rules...

Henry's were not the same rules. They had the core bits, but they were not the same.

If you say you didn't forsee that people might defend 1e against the[/i] incorrect or misleading idea that 1e requires 10 pages of rules to cover initiative[/b] then I have to believe you...

Stop right there.

The only people putting forth the idea that 1e might require (or at least be aided by) a 20-page document on initiative are the fans at dragonsfoot.org who compiled the document in the first place. If you, Shaman, delver, or anyone else wants to view this or what it reveals about the nature of the 1e ruleset as an "attack" that needs to be "defended" against, that's your prerogative.

EDIT: Removed the rest. This thread is going nowhere fast, and my de-ignoring various posters to continue it is not productive.

For the record, I still plan to run a RAW-as-possible 1e game someday, probably for a Gameday.

 

[MerricB]

I learnt how to play AD&D and Moldvay Basic D&D at the same time. I have always been someone who enjoys knowing how the rules work. I spent hours reading and rereading the AD&D DMG combat rules... and the AD&D initiative rules remain one of the worst written set of rules in the game. The work of those fine players who constructed the OP document is exceptional.

AD&D is a really, really great game. I'd happily DM it again; that I'm not currently doing so is entirely due to my players preferring 3.5e greatly.

The basic idea of "roll d6 and the winner acts first" is fine. Most of my AD&D games were played under that rule, ignoring the special case rules that cluttered and confused the issue.

The AD&D rules work fine when melee is the only activity being conducted. The rules seem to actively dissuade missile fire and spell-use. Arrows strike random opponents in a melee, spells will get disrupted. That's all fine and good.

Still, it isn't hard to have a situation where A & B are engaged in melee, and C, who is standing safely away from the melee, is casting a magic missile targeting B.

Here's a really odd case: A is a 14th level fighter, with #AT 2. B is a 6th level fighter, with #AT 1. Between just A & B you get the initiative order (no dice requred) of A strikes first, B strikes second, and A strikes third.

Now, A is wielding a two-handed sword, and B is wielding a longsword. At what point does C's magic missile strike B? Before or after A strikes him?

Cheers!

 

[thedungeondelver]

Still, it isn't hard to have a situation where A & B are engaged in melee, and C, who is standing safely away from the melee, is casting a magic missile targeting B.

Here's a really odd case: A is a 14th level fighter, with #AT 2. B is a 6th level fighter, with #AT 1. Between just A & B you get the initiative order (no dice requred) of A strikes first, B strikes second, and A strikes third.

Now, A is wielding a two-handed sword, and B is wielding a longsword. At what point does C's magic missile strike B? Before or after A strikes him?

That's not that odd. How many segments does it take to cast magic missile? One. Initiative has to be rolled (setting aside surprise for a moment, but that wouldn't matter anyway because if A surprised C & B, he'd whale on B for n segments of surprise...). For "side" C&B, a 1 is rolled. For "side" A, a 6 is rolled. Goes off in segment 7. Or if you'd like to see it fire and hit in the melee, let's say for side "A" a 2 was rolled.

So here's your answer:

A swings
B Swings
A swings and the magic missile is fired by C.

In short, casting time + higher init roll.

 

[The Shaman]

Here's a really odd case: A is a 14th level fighter, with #AT 2. B is a 6th level fighter, with #AT 1. Between just A & B you get the initiative order (no dice requred) of A strikes first, B strikes second, and A strikes third.

Now, A is wielding a two-handed sword, and B is wielding a longsword. At what point does C's magic missile strike B? Before or after A strikes him?

A attacks first, B and C's attack order is determined by initiative rolls, and A gets the last attack of the round. Weapon speed factors don't enter into the melee attacks since there is no initiative tie between A and B to break. The longsword's weapon speed factor of 5 comes into play if B wins initiative, in which case C's initiative roll is subtracted from 5 and compared to the spell casting time of 1 to determine which comes first - if C wins or ties B's initiative roll, the magic missle is cast before B's melee attack.

Note that in only one circumstance - B beats C's initiative roll - was a determination of weapon speed factor less initiative compared to casting time necessary: all other circumstances required just comparing the initiative rolls for B and C.

 

[The Shaman]

The only people putting forth the idea that 1e might require (or at least be aided by) a 20-page document on initiative...

As you say, stop right there.

As Raven Crowking already noted, it's not "twenty pages" devoted to initiative. Half the document is a melee example, and the rest is extensively annotated and footnoted - the actual rules content related to initiative (as opposed to surprise, encounter distance, and a few special actions like charging and missle weapon specialists) is a couple of pages at most.

 

[The Shaman]

If you, Shaman, delver, or anyone else wants to view this or what it reveals about the nature of the 1e ruleset as an "attack" that needs to be "defended" against, that's your prerogative.

As I said before, I'm neither "attacking" nor "defending" anything, just trying to put the discussion on a fact-based footing, instead of letting mistakes and misrepresentations go unchallenged.

 

[MerricB]

A attacks first, B and C's attack order is determined by initiative rolls, and A gets the last attack of the round. Weapon speed factors don't enter into the melee attacks since there is no initiative tie between A and B to break. The longsword's weapon speed factor of 5 comes into play if B wins initiative, in which case C's initiative roll is subtracted from 5 and compared to the spell casting time of 1 to determine which comes first - if C wins or ties B's initiative roll, the magic missle is cast before B's melee attack.

Thanks for the reply.

A few values - all assuming B loses initiative wrt. C. (rules DMG pg 66-7 "Other Weapon Factor Determinants").

C casting magic missile (1 segment)
B rolls a 1: Dagger strikes simultaneously with spell, scimitar strikes after.
B rolls a 2: Dagger strikes before spells, scimitar strikes simultaneously.
B rolls a 3: Dagger strikes simultaneously with spell, scimitar strikes before
B rolls a 4: Dagger strikes after spell, scimitar strikes simultaneously
B rolls a 5: Dagger strikes after spell, scimitar strikes after.

Dagger or Scimitar or Longsword vs. Web (2 segments):
B rolls a 1: Dagger strikes before, Scimitar strikes simultaneously, longsword strikes after.
B rolls a 2: Dagger strikes before; Scimitar strikes before; Longsword strikes after
B rolls a 3: Dagger strikes before; Scimitar strikes before; Longsword strikes simultaneously
B rolls a 4: Dagger strikes simultaneously; Scimitar strikes before; Longsword strikes before
B rolls a 5: Dagger strikes after; Scimitar strikes Simultaneously; Longsword strikes before

I find that a Scimitar (the slower weapon) works better against web spell than a dagger quite odd...

Cheers!

 

[The Shaman]

I find that a Scimitar (the slower weapon) works better against web spell than a dagger quite odd...

I don't find it odd that a scimitar's slender, curved blade might be better at slicing through webs than a dagger myself, but I didn't design the factors, I just used them in play.