AD&D1 Combat Exercise

[T. Foster]

You sure about them coming in odd numbered rounds? That would mean the character gets one in round 1. That doesn't match my recollections.

It's in the DMG description of multiple attack routines, mentioned as an aside ("since a 12th level fighter gets two attack routines in every odd numbered round..." or something to that effect). Note that this directly contradicts the mention in the PH about when monks get their extra open-handed attack (i.e. that a monk with 5/4 attacks gets 2 attacks in the 4th round). This can either be treated as errata (correcting whichever one you choose -- I tend to go with the DMG (later date) as being more authoritative, others might choose the PH (since the players have access to it)) or as an indication that monks' extra attacks and fighters' extra attacks occur differently...

 

[Gentlegamer]

Do the hobgoblins have any secondary melee weapons? If this campaign is using weapon vs. armor adjustments, they ought to be carrying a secondary melee weapon for dealing with plate mail, and other armor types that opponents are likely to employ (if this group is trained and disciplined enough for this kind of planning).

 

[WSmith]

From the DMG, Hobgoblins are HD 1+ on the monster attack matrix.

AC / To hit roll needed
1 / 17
0 / 18
-1 / 19
-2 / 20
-3 / 20
-4 / 20
-5 / 20
-6 / 20
-7 / 20
-8 / 21
etc.

That means to hit the AC of -4, a combined roll and bonuses must be at least 20. Now, if using the optional rule on page 82, it would look like this:

AC / To hit roll needed
1 / 17 (die result + bonuses)
0 / 18 (die result + bonuses)
-1 / 19 (die result + bonuses)
-2 / 20 (die result + bonuses)
-3 / 20 (natural 20)
-4 / 20 (natural 20)
-5 / 20 (natural 20)
-6 / 20 (natural 20)
-7 / 20 (natural 20)
-8 / 21 (natural 20 + at least a +1 bonuses)
etc.

 

[Celebrim]

Most of that seems familiar, and looks alot how I would have ran it back in the day (except that I didn't use the '# attacks = level' rule vs. 0 level opponents).

Also, I don't have the table in front of me, but I thought that you hit on a natural 20 on every repeated 20 but the last one, so that it went 'natural or modified 20', 'natural or modified 20', 'modified 20 or higher', 'modified 21', 'modified 22', etc.

I have to say that I really miss weapon vs. AC adjustment. I get so tired of everyone using longswords.

 

[thedungeondelver]

ahh, the days of simple, rules light, play.

You should have done tied initiative with different weapon speeds.

He did. It was so ridiculously and horribly complex that you missed it.

 

[Celebrim]

That means to hit the AC of -4, a combined roll and bonuses must be at least 20. Now, if using the optional rule on page 82, it would look like this:

AC / To hit roll needed
1 / 17 (die result + bonuses)
0 / 18 (die result + bonuses)
-1 / 19 (die result + bonuses)
-2 / 20 (die result + bonuses)
-3 / 20 (natural 20)
-4 / 20 (natural 20)
-5 / 20 (natural 20)
-6 / 20 (natural 20)
-7 / 20 (natural 20)
-8 / 21 (natural 20 + at least a +1 bonuses)
etc.

That answers my question. Yes, that's exactly how I remember it. I guess I was using an opitional rule the whole time and didn't realize it.

 

[T. Foster]

The point that the game was designed with the thought of a grid or similar setup isn't much of an overstatement, if at all. After all, movement, spell and weapon ranges and the like still were measured in inches, assuming 10ft (or yards outdoors) per inch. The wargame/miniatures aspect, and the assumptions of an official square grid over a hex grid are more than mildly implied.

3E makes a more rigid case for the grid as the only way to do things properly, but that tradition certainly has its roots in 1E.

But the same page of the DMG that shows the square grid (8 squares surrounding the central square) also shows a hex grid (6 hexes surrounding the central hex). The grids are only there for visualizing placements of multiple attacks against a single target (which count as flanking, which count as rear) and not (at least IMO) an indication that combat is supposed to occur on a fixed square (or hexagonal) grid. Note that the number of attackers who can surround an opponent changes depending on relative size, so if 8 attackers are allowed (size M attacking size M) then the square grid is appropriate, but if 6 attackers (size L attacking size M) or 12 attackers (size S attacking size M) then the hex-grid is probably more appropriate (with 2 attackers per hex in the latter case).

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

ahh, the days of simple, rules light, play.

You should have done tied initiative with different weapon speeds.

No, Yrag should have been an elven fighter/magic-user with psionics who mixed using a bow, swordplay, spells, psionics, and closed by grappling the last bugbear.

This solution has been left as an exercise for the reader.

 

[thedungeondelver]

No, Yrag should have been an elven fighter/magic-user with psionics who mixed using a bow, swordplay, spells, psionics, and closed by grappling the last bugbear.

This solution has been left as an exercise for the reader.

Because that would have been so much easier under any other edition.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

That's really not true in the 1e RAW. There are illustrations for how a PC can be surrounded, who gets the shield AC, who gets the rear AC, and the difference between using square vs hex grids. That implies things being pretty static in overall relationship between attacker and defender. That said, there were also rules for shooting into melee that suggested a certain amount of bobbing and weaving since it was unpredictable who the target of the ranged attack would be.

Not just ranged attacks; look at the "Who Attacks Whom" rules -- the target of melee attacks with multiple foes were also randomly determined. And foes within 10' were considered engaged. Both those rules make exact positioning in OAD&D combat much more difficult to reconcile, IMO.

Personally, I think the position diagrams, etc in OAD&D were mostly drawn in from the OD&D and Chainmail roots of the game. I find that trying to make exact grid positions work with the by-the-book OAD&D combat rules is problematic, at best.