AD&D weapon speed vs 5e turn based combat?

[TarionzCousin]

Hmmm.... I don't actually recall. I tried to do "everything" by the book and expressly didn't have House Rules™ but maybe I misread something.

By the time we started using Weapon Speed Factors, I was the only regular DM still running--so I didn't have another DM around to tell me "This is not normal."

 

[Gnosistika]

No. Per 2E DMG if I recall correctly.

We were teenagers; we followed all the rules.

Looking at both 2e DMG (pg: 78-81) and 2e PH (page: 124-126). That is not a rule, maybe from 1e? Or an interesting homebrew combining 1e and 2e?

 

[Staffan]

Initiative was a d10. If you rolled over a ten (die roll plus weapon speed) you didn't get to go in the current round; your total rolled over.

But "natural weapons" from most monsters, had a Speed Factor of plus zero.

That meant most monsters attacked more often than PC's. My players really, really didn't enjoy that.

As others have pointed out, there was no "max 10" thing about 2e initiative. Also, natural weapons had a speed factor based on creature size. I think it boiled down to +3 per size category above Small, but I'm not sure and can't be hedgehogged to look it up.

 

[cavetroll]

How about instead of rolling for initiative, everyone declares their intended actions and target, and there is just a predetermined order of actions e.g.
1) Readied missile weapons triggered (first attack)
2) Melee (first) attacks if no distance to travel (melee weapons have their own order e.g. long reach goes first)
3) Fast spells
4) Melee (first) attacks with movement to get there
5) Medium spells (plus movement)
6) Melee remaining attacks
7) Slow spells
8) Any remaining attacks/actions if you didn't get to do yours
9) Any remaining movement
etc.

There would be some method to break ties (maybe dex based)

Durations would have to be careful to either be long (so the turn it ended on didn't matter) or based on the targets turn so that the caster deciding to use a slow spell in round two doesn't prolong a condition that ends on their turn.

The benefits of this is
a) No initiative rolls to be tracked and so a bad initiative roll doesn't relegate you to last forever.
b) More realism since fast actions occur before slow actions
c) Multi attacks broken up so they don't insta kill due to a good initiative roll
d) More depth to decision making since weapon or spell speed makes a difference

 

[Sir Brennen]

How about instead of rolling for initiative, everyone declares their intended actions and target, and there is just a predetermined order of actions e.g.
1) Readied missile weapons triggered (first attack)
2) Melee (first) attacks if no distance to travel (melee weapons have their own order e.g. long reach goes first)
3) Fast spells
4) Melee (first) attacks with movement to get there
5) Medium spells (plus movement)
6) Melee remaining attacks
7) Slow spells
8) Any remaining attacks/actions if you didn't get to do yours
9) Any remaining movement
etc.

There would be some method to break ties (maybe dex based)

Durations would have to be careful to either be long (so the turn it ended on didn't matter) or based on the targets turn so that the caster deciding to use a slow spell in round two doesn't prolong a condition that ends on their turn.

The benefits of this is
a) No initiative rolls to be tracked and so a bad initiative roll doesn't relegate you to last forever.
b) More realism since fast actions occur before slow actions
c) Multi attacks broken up so they don't insta kill due to a good initiative roll
d) More depth to decision making since weapon or spell speed makes a difference

That's ... very close to replicating 1E's turn order.

It's complex enough that you probably want to do some playtesting. For example, I think you'll see a lot more archer rogues since they'd always get sneak attack first in a round (provided favorable conditions, like a melee buddy next to the target.) Also, sneak attack is balanced against fighter features like Extra Attack, so the former could still do early round "insta-kills" while the latter might make individual attacks feel more underwhelming if they're spaced out.

Overall, though, the big "Nope" for me is the pre-turn declarations. The ability to decide what you're going to do on your turn based on the current battle conditions, not what they were at the start of the round, is what actually makes for more tactical play IMO. And without declared actions, the rest of the proposal falls apart.

If you're really interested in tactical fantasy combat, I recommend checking out The Fantasy Trip (TFT). It was written explicitly in response to what the author saw as the lack of that type of combat in D&D 1E. The turn order is very similar to what you're proposing but has the advantage of already having decades of play. I played it alongside D&D in the 80's and took part in the Kickstarter a couple years ago for the new edition, because sometimes I do like more tactical RPGs.

TFT started as a couple of "micro-games" - Melee and Wizard. The Melee game presents the base combat system for TFT, presented as an arena duel game. It's available for free in PDF if you want to check it out.

 

[cavetroll]

That's ... very close to replicating 1E's turn order.

It's complex enough that you probably want to do some playtesting. For example, I think you'll see a lot more archer rogues since they'd always get sneak attack first in a round (provided favorable conditions, like a melee buddy next to the target.) Also, sneak attack is balanced against fighter features like Extra Attack, so the former could still do early round "insta-kills" while the latter might make individual attacks feel more underwhelming if they're spaced out.

Overall, though, the big "Nope" for me is the pre-turn declarations. The ability to decide what you're going to do on your turn based on the current battle conditions, not what they were at the start of the round, is what actually makes for more tactical play IMO. And without declared actions, the rest of the proposal falls apart.

If you're really interested in tactical fantasy combat, I recommend checking out The Fantasy Trip (TFT). It was written explicitly in response to what the author saw as the lack of that type of combat in D&D 1E. The turn order is very similar to what you're proposing but has the advantage of already having decades of play. I played it alongside D&D in the 80's and took part in the Kickstarter a couple years ago for the new edition, because sometimes I do like more tactical RPGs.

TFT started as a couple of "micro-games" - Melee and Wizard. The Melee game presents the base combat system for TFT, presented as an arena duel game. It's available for free in PDF if you want to check it out.

Yeah I agree. Looking at TFT it looks pretty cool. The one thing that stands out in the combat order is that you move, then the next person moves, and you can opt to go last. That means as a ranged hero potentially you could forever move out of range. One of the nice things about 5e is you can move and attack before they can run away on their turn. Anyway I will study it more perhaps something in there I can pull out.

Overall it doesn't seem like there is much improvement to do on 5e combat sequence, except perhaps simplifying durations to not stop in quite so many places.

 

[Baron Opal II]

One of the great things in 1e/2e was weapon speed/factor which was added to the initiative roll.
In those days you would decide what to do each round first, resolve initiative adding the weapon speed or spell casting time to the init roll and then do it on your turn.
This made for both a wonderfully chaotic battle and added depth to the decision making of choosing fast weapons and quick spells (which interrupt spell casting).

However in 5e there is something to be said for streamlining combat by not having to wait for everyone to decide on their action (before a round can start).
Each person resolves their turn then can sleep until their turn is up again.

Or did that create an environment less engaging?
I certainly remember in AD&D combat was very much a "all hands on deck" scenario with people coordinating their moves.
The downside was that it didn't really account well for a changing battle.

Do you think there is a "best of both worlds" combat sequence? If so what would it look like?

The best of both worlds would probably be Perrin's initiative list. It was something like*

1- Archery, Power Words
2- Polearms, Spears
3- 1st Level Spells
4- Swords, Axes, Maces, Wands
5- Daggers
6- Spells
7- Scrolls

Your initiative determined the order in which segment you went. With the exception of scrolls, you could go a segment, maybe two, faster than your peers if you rolled high and had a high Dex. Reach was most important, but if you were able to survive closing you might be able to negate their weapon (dagger vs spear, for example).

*I can't find his list instantly, but found my own adaption.

 

[nevin]

That's ... very close to replicating 1E's turn order.

It's complex enough that you probably want to do some playtesting. For example, I think you'll see a lot more archer rogues since they'd always get sneak attack first in a round (provided favorable conditions, like a melee buddy next to the target.) Also, sneak attack is balanced against fighter features like Extra Attack, so the former could still do early round "insta-kills" while the latter might make individual attacks feel more underwhelming if they're spaced out.

Overall, though, the big "Nope" for me is the pre-turn declarations. The ability to decide what you're going to do on your turn based on the current battle conditions, not what they were at the start of the round, is what actually makes for more tactical play IMO. And without declared actions, the rest of the proposal falls apart.

If you're really interested in tactical fantasy combat, I recommend checking out The Fantasy Trip (TFT). It was written explicitly in response to what the author saw as the lack of that type of combat in D&D 1E. The turn order is very similar to what you're proposing but has the advantage of already having decades of play. I played it alongside D&D in the 80's and took part in the Kickstarter a couple years ago for the new edition, because sometimes I do like more tactical RPGs.

TFT started as a couple of "micro-games" - Melee and Wizard. The Melee game presents the base combat system for TFT, presented as an arena duel game. It's available for free in PDF if you want to check it out.

usually the more complicated you make combat the less fun and the more a pain in the ass it is. Pathfinder 1e is the shining star of that kind of game. I'm playing in a pathfinder game with friends now and at 11th level it sometimes takes an hour and a half to get through a combat round. a couple of our players love the tactical turn, move act etc. I just find it tedious. I really miss the old move attack move attack bing bang done. But I've always been more of a big picture roleplayer. If I want a tactical game I play battletech, or risk.

Make sure your players want that much longer to resolve kind of combat.

 

[Sir Brennen]

usually the more complicated you make combat the less fun and the more a pain in the ass it is. Pathfinder 1e is the shining star of that kind of game. I'm playing in a pathfinder game with friends now and at 11th level it sometimes takes an hour and a half to get through a combat round. a couple of our players love the tactical turn, move act etc. I just find it tedious. I really miss the old move attack move attack bing bang done. But I've always been more of a big picture roleplayer. If I want a tactical game I play battletech, or risk.

Make sure your players want that much longer to resolve kind of combat.

You probably should have quoted CaveTroll, because I completely agree. 5E is just "tactical enough" that it satisfies that itch for my players who like that aspect, and not too much for those who want to focus on other things.

As I mentioned, The Fantasy Trip is one I'm familiar with that is very tactical, but it's a little lower power, not the fantasy superheroes game D&D can become at higher levels. It still plays pretty fast once you're used to the rules. (Plus imagine if in D&D your hit points never exceed your CON score... fights tend to go faster when you're easier to kill.)

At the other end of the spectrum are a lot of the OSR games, which often have almost no rules for tactical combat other than how you attack. I'm currently getting into Mörk Bork, which all the combat rules fit on a single page with large font. Even the rules for movement are "you can move about the distance of an average room and to something else". That's it.

 

[nevin]

wow players never exceeding con score reminds me of a straight roll 3d6 per stat in order game we tried once. made it about 4 session we had fun but it was brutal and the table decided to go back to something more heroic.