• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

AD&D1 Combat Exercise

Philotomy Jurament said:
I don't really like that; if I'm going to the trouble to have man-to-man minis, then I prefer to have more precise positioning.

Regarding the OP - I think it was overstating it to say that 1E "used battlegrids". I think there were some illustrations of how to judge encounters where a grid was used as a tool. But as far as I recall grids were never used with the kind of precision that is expected in 3E. They were never a part of the actual "physics" of the game world the way they are in 3E.

The thing about 1E is that the rounds are a minute long, so precise positioning would be hard to do because your character bobs and weaves for 60 seconds, meaning he really could move quite a distance in the course of the round if he wanted to. How far though? AFAIK it never says, and IME such things were resolved according to the habits/customs of the DM.

Then again, every time I say anything about how I played 1E, some grognard comes out of the woodwork to tell me that on page umpity-ump of the DMG there's some hard and fast rule. The last time I got involved in this kind of reasoning, it was over the training issue - which it turned out that even Gygax didn't use as written IIRC. I'm not sure he followed the initiative rules or speed factor rules either. And that's relevant to calling something "1E rules" because RAW and people's experiences are more likely to be different than in 3E (part of the reason there was a 3E AFAICT). I wonder if the 1E RAW is a game anyone actually ever played.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

rossik said:
one qustion : i dont quite follow the changes in yrags AC...why that happen?

First, when Yrag is surprised, he cannot use his shield or dexterity bonus to AC.

Second, when flanked (which means the opponents are behind him, or behind him on his left or right sides), Yrag can't defend himself as effectively.

IIRC, the defender can't use his shield if the attacker is on the left or right flank, and loses his shield AND dex AND the attacker gets a +2 to hit if the attacker is directly behind.

Unlike 3rd edition, facing matters in this game.
 


due to the repeated 20s on the attack matrix, the hobgoblins would also hit AC -4 on a natural 20
That is not my understanding of the repeated 20s. It's not a *natural* 20, it's just a 20, after all modifiers. For instance, the hobgoblins need a 20 to hit AC -1 to -6, so with their -3 modifier for using longswords against plate & shield, they can't hit any AC better than 0. They can't roll a natural 23 on d20.

And where is the rule saying Dex and shield can't be included when surprised? I can't find it in the DMG.

Quasqueton
 

gizmo33 said:
Regarding the OP - I think it was overstating it to say that 1E "used battlegrids". I think there were some illustrations of how to judge encounters where a grid was used as a tool. But as far as I recall grids were never used with the kind of precision that is expected in 3E. They were never a part of the actual "physics" of the game world the way they are in 3E.

The thing about 1E is that the rounds are a minute long, so precise positioning would be hard to do because your character bobs and weaves for 60 seconds, meaning he really could move quite a distance in the course of the round if he wanted to. How far though? AFAIK it never says, and IME such things were resolved according to the habits/customs of the DM.

We used the initiative rules as written, with speed factor modifiers used to break ties and to see whether you could attack that evil cleric and interrupt his Flamestrike/Blade Barrier spell. We also used segment by segment movement. Linear distance travelled in one round remained the same, of course; 120 feet in one round for unencumbered humans. Movement speeds are specifically defined, actually.

There was quite a bit of shifting around, actually, as characters and monsters jockeyed for position.

Grid maps were used because of convenience; otherwise we'd have been pulling out lengths of string in order to measure distances, and that gets annoying. Also, unlike 3e, spell effects emanated from the "center" of the caster's figure on the map, and weren't limited to "choose a corner of the square and a direction that must be either 90 degrees or 45 degrees".
 

A few notes:

1. In AD&D (1st edition) surprise does not negate the DEX or shield bonus. That became official in 2nd edition.

2. In the rounds were Yrag is engaged stricly in combat, (i.e. when not being attacked by the bugbears spears,) there is no need to roll for initiative at all on the even rounds. It would go

Yrag
Hobgoblins
Yrag

When you throw in the spear throwing bugbears, you may use the initiative roll for Yrag and the Bugbears only to determine if the spears hit Yrag before or after the melee exchange in that round.

3. With repeating 20s on the attack matrices, it should be possible for the hobgoblins, especially at short range, to hit their mark.

4. It was noted that Yrag moved 6 feet to the hobgoblins. He was already "engaged" cause he was within 10 feet of them and could have attacked.

I will have to look at it closer for more feedback.

Also, considering Yrag has a ring of invisibility, and that the horde is more than likely making a ton of noise, I would most likely rule that the horde has no chance of surprising the fighter, but he could surprise them on a roll of 1-4 (this is not directly in the rules, but extrapolated from the thieves skills entries) granting up to 4 segments of surprise.
 

Tarek said:
Unlike 3rd edition, facing matters in this game.

Which is really weird, in retrospect.

Ryan Dancey recently pointed out the reason why there is no facing in 3E. With 6 second rounds there is so much movement that a character would be facing a lot of directions. He recommends you watch a basketball game and see how much movement there is in 6 seconds.

Now, take that basketball game and watch how much movement takes place in 1 minute.
 

1. You should have checked for surprise before determining the encounter distance :)

2. At the end of a charge, weapon length, not rolled initiative, determines first strike (however, see note under #4 below).

3. When fighting the goblins, Yrag's extra attacks aren't limited to the number of opponents -- as a 9th level fighter he should have gotten his full 9 attacks each round against the goblins, regardless of how many of them he was facing (but see note under #4 below).

4. The extra attack in the 3/2 sequence comes in the odd-numbered rounds, not the even-numbered rounds, and in those rounds there's no need to check initiative (in this case -- if Yrag had companions their actions would still be determined by the initiative roll): Yrag's first attack always occurs first, the goblinoids' attacks always occur second, and Yrag's second attack always occurs last. Likewise with his 9 attacks against the goblins -- his first 4 attacks would occur first, initiative roll would determine which was first between his 5th attack and the goblins' attacks, and then his 6-9th attacks would occur last (note: whether Yrag at the end of his charge gets all 9 of his attacks or only 1 attack (and, in the former case, whether the weapon length first strike rule applies only to the 5th attack or to all 9) is an ambiguity in the rules -- make a ruling and stick to it (because the players will remember if you don't)).

5. Normally it takes a full round to "engage" an opponent in melee (unless charging, which can only be done once every 10 rounds); in this example the combatants all fall within a loophole in that they're already within 10' of each other from round 2 on (which begs the question of why the bad guys didn't dogpile Yrag right away since they were all technically in "melee range" with him the entire time). Had the hobgoblins and bugbears been more than 10' from Yrag (say the goblins had charged 12' during their surprise segment instead of closing 6') then Yrag would've had to "burn a round" in round three to close against the hobgoblins and vice versa (unless the hobgoblins chose to charge him -- he couldn't charge them because he already charged the goblins in round 1); he would also have suffered a free "breaking off engagement" attack from the goblin. Likewise with the bugbears in round 7.

Other than that, though, everything looks spot-on.

EDIT: Actually, one more thing: since both Yrag and the goblins were closing towards each other in round 1, they should have met somewhere in the middle rather than Yrag closing the entire distance and the goblins not moving at all (Yrag has both a faster move rate than the goblins and is charging, plus he won initiative, so he should have closed a proportionately greater distance than the goblins (with 24' between them, say Yrag moves 18' to the goblins' 6')). With this, the distance between Yrag and the goblins and the other goblinoids would be 12' instead of 6', thus falling outside of the 10' melee/engagement range and requiring Yrag and the hobgoblins & bugbears to spend rounds engaging each other as described in #5 above.
 
Last edited:

Quasqueton, as far as I can tell on a quick perusal of the DMG, the rule about "no Dex and no shield" is an extrapolation from the last sentence of the first paragraph under Suprise on page 61: "However, during the surprise segment or segments, the surprised party is unable to react in any way, so the latter actions might be possible."

It was a very very common house rule, even if it wasn't explicitly spelled out. Since it affected the characters as well as the monsters, it was deemed fair enough to remain.

A lot of 1st edition was like that, which was a part of its charm. With things not explicitly spelled out for you, the DM could make a ruling and then the game would move on, instead of being caught in the trap of people looking up rules in the books.

It may also have appeared somewhere in the Dragon Magazine's Sage Advice pages, clarifying how surprise works.

Also, in the combat example, there could have been another 'suprise segment' where both sides were acting quickly, before the round began.
 

Glyfair said:
Which is really weird, in retrospect.

Ryan Dancey recently pointed out the reason why there is no facing in 3E. With 6 second rounds there is so much movement that a character would be facing a lot of directions. He recommends you watch a basketball game and see how much movement there is in 6 seconds.

Now, take that basketball game and watch how much movement takes place in 1 minute.

Sure, but basketball isn't melee with a shield in your hand. ;)

Ask your nearest re-enactor, SCA member or other experienced medievalist; facing matters over periods of six seconds.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top