AD&D 1E AD&D1e Initiative woes - how to interpret Acrobat-Thief's Evasion?

[Snarf Zagyg]

Oh! Charging occurs outside of the initiative sequence? I hadn't realized that.

Yeah, for simplicity's sake - well as much as that applies for 1e initiative - I am not using that fighter multiple attack initiative complication. I get why that's there, but this is a one/two-shot for friends who want to try out 1e (and I want to experience running UK4 When a Star Falls for them), and so the more streamlined I can get it - while maintaining the core essence - it probably best.

My advice?

Make your own simplified initiative system.

I recommend something similar to the following-

1. Initiative every round. One roll for each side. After declarations.
2. Get rid of most of the bonuses, complications, etc.
3. Keep spellcasting times if you want to keep the idea that spellcasting in combat is hard.

That's it.

 

[James Gasik]

Or, in typical Gygaxian fashion, if a subsystem or mode of play is too obnoxious for you, here's a magical way to ignore it completely:

 

[Mannahnin]

My advice?

Make your own simplified initiative system.

I recommend something similar to the following-

1. Initiative every round. One roll for each side. After declarations.
2. Get rid of most of the bonuses, complications, etc.
3. Keep spellcasting times if you want to keep the idea that spellcasting in combat is hard.

That's it.

Yup. I ran B/X on Sunday with a similar method. I'm using side-based initiative on d6, with action declaration and the Morale/Movement/Missile/Magic/Melee sequence resolved a bit ad-hoc. In keeping with the example of play on B28, I'm allowing missiles and magic to pre-empt movement and melee if the sides are not at melee range and need to close, even if the shooter/caster's side lost initiative. Once you're actually engaged, though, initiative trumps and spells can get disrupted by melee attacks.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Oh! Charging occurs outside of the initiative sequence? I hadn't realized that.

I don't think it does. The DMG table specifically assigns it to step 4E, so IF you are charging and you won initiative then that's when it takes place. If you're charging and LOST initiative, then all of the initiative winning side's actions are pretty much taking place prior to your charge. When you DO charge and the opponent is meleeing you in return, then which of your attacks is RESOLVED before the other is strictly a matter of whose weapon is longer - but that melee exchange between those two opponents still happens within a specific place in the initiative sequence.

1E initiative isn't always assigning a particular tick of the clock to determine what happens first. That is, sometimes it DOES, sometimes it's only a FACTOR in the calculation and not the sole decider. It's better to think of it in terms of what actions are RESOLVED first - even if they don't happen first.

 

[Genghis Don]

Huh, so if I'm explaining this to a player (who has gaming experience, but no 1e experience), how do I explain that narratively?

If you've lost initiative then that whole combat you are unable to use Evasion whatsoever and there's nothing you can do about it, because......

Or is initiative re-rolled each round in 1e? So it's sort of like Evasion might be "switching on / off" whether it's available during the fight?

initiative is rolled every round, but there is a misunderstanding about evasion (also, no one understands 1e initiative, but it need not be a big deal, high roller goes first, attacks generally landing on the die of the other side)
Evasion only requires initiative to be won if the character is in MELEE combat. It's fine going first or last vs (most) ranged weapons & some ranged spells/special attacks.

Unsaid, but logically following, if a character was simply "defending", and not seeking to make their own attacks, even melee attacks could be rolled vs regardless of initiative. This isn't really the spirit of AD&D though (see parry in the PH for a laugh).

As a poster noted, a weapon of speed is handy, but so is anything that causes winning of initiative, and in 1e that is many things...haste, speed potion, multiple attack routines from high level fighting ability. This last makes the almost mandatory multiclassing of thieves to be combat-capable even more tempting (fighter/thief can fight, and eventually evade more as they win initiative more). Dual/Quit class thief-acrobats, ditto.

Side note on the strangely designed 1e bard...there was no reason not to include UA features if UA is used at all...so weapon specialization when a fighter (L5-7), and thief-acrobat (L6-8) on the way to Bard-hood. Pretty minor, the thief part, but maybe useful & all such had the high str score needed (and quite likely the dex too).

Now, I think the class ought just keep all the thief abilities continuing as they rise in level (they are paying for the extras with high ability scores & requiring more XP to level up now), but for the offical minded, there was some info in Dragon 103, unearthed arcana errata.

 

[fuindordm]

Oh! Charging occurs outside of the initiative sequence? I hadn't realized that.

Yeah, for simplicity's sake - well as much as that applies for 1e initiative - I am not using that fighter multiple attack initiative complication. I get why that's there, but this is a one/two-shot for friends who want to try out 1e (and I want to experience running UK4 When a Star Falls for them), and so the more streamlined I can get it - while maintaining the core essence - it probably best.

My understanding and praxis is that any movement during a round costs time in segments. Most PCs move at 9" or 12" so assuming that a round can last anywhere from 6 to 10 segments, I divide by 10 and round to say most PCs move at a rate of 10' per segment.

So if my side goes on segment 2, and I charge an opponent 20' away, I actually reach them and resolve melee on segment 4. If they have a longer weapon, they attack me on segment 4 before I attack them. Unless they already used their action to attack someone before I get there.

Also, it is vastly simpler to play that the lower roll on the d6 wins initiative and that each side's roll is their starting segment.

Regarding evasion, I was looking at this recently and I think that the procedure is as follows:
1. Did my side win initiative (Y/N)?
2. If Y, I can start evading attacks starting from segment +1.
3. Since successful evasion implies movement, each successful evade takes an additional segment and moves me to a slighly different place on the map. I might not be able to evade if I can't move out of the way, due to obstacles, too many people around me, narrow hallway, etc.

 

[fuindordm]

What does "having the initiative" mean?

Also, mentioning "Initiative" and "AD&D" in the same thread is like rubbing a magic lamp of grognard summoning. Use with caution!

 

[Genghis Don]

Also, mentioning "Initiative" and "AD&D" in the same thread is like rubbing a magic lamp of grognard summoning. Use with caution!

the OP did it on purpose, methinks...as the top has almost nothing to do with initiative. It's only potentially an issue due the wording (melee+ initiative, vs non-melee attacks) & house rules or rather, simplifications on initiative
if you change things to low roll wins, that makes understanding winning harder. I'm not against such notions, but it can often cause confusion when taken into contexts it wasn't attached to before.

BTW, a round is 10 segments long in AD&D, a segment is 6 seconds, and a round is one minute. Time's not abstracted, though most everything else is.

 

[Genghis Don]

I realize I never answered the first/most basic question "how do I explain that narratively"

Gord-Gygax(Thief acrobat) is fighting a fire giant. The fight started promisingly, with a surprise backstab, but the giant, after bellowing out in pain & shock, simply turned(morale test made), and, eyes lowering to the rogue, devolved into melee combat, the immensely strong, thickly built giant slashing ferociously with his 12' greatsword. Gord-Gygax, by contrast is trying to stay in close while avoiding blows, seeking gaps in the giant's armor, or at least to land thrusts into mail rather than plate. Gord is using his long sword(+2, actually a holy avenger, the DM being the only one to know this fact, pillaged from a tomb long hence), but also his dagger(+3 vs larger than man sized foes) in his off hand (dex 18; 0/-1 mods).

we roll for initiative, 6 for giant, 2 for Thief-Acrobat. The wounded, furious giant lashes out (rolls 11; with HD 11+4 that hits ac -2; Gord has: bracers of defense ac 5, ring of protection +1, dex 18, cloak of protection +3 for AC -3, a miss ). DM says "Gord just manages to duck beneath a mighty slash, the giant having a hard time adjusting to his proximity & height, roll for his sword & dagger attack".

The player does (THACO 16 as L10 master thief-acrobat, and 17 str for +1, magic weapons & off hand mods noted above): 2+3=5, miss, and 8+3=11, miss (giant is ac 3)

DM "scrambling about as he is to avoid a fatal blow, Gord's sword bounces from armor plates, while his dagger thrusts are foiled by mail, thus far at least. "

both continue melee the next round, initiative comes up 2 giant and 4 thief-acrobat

Gords attacks 15 hit, 11 miss, for 5 damage, but the giant remains standing (HP 12/54). DM "Gords blade finds gap & penetrates, though not deeply. The black skinned giant seems to be a bit gray now though, as the effects of the backstab seem to be sinking in...still, the now desperate giant slashes and swipes at you" rolls 15 "and it would be a hit, but lets test your evasion ability" player rolls 91% failing (base 30% +5% dex +4% no armor=39%). "sorry, Gord almost manages to avoid the giant, but he is already beginning to tire from the desperate pace, and likely to run out of luck soon" rolls "remove 16 hp" (Gord has 44/60 now; HL character HP are mostly abstractions, skill, luck, etc, in 1e, until the numbers are low).

Initiative of 6 giant to 2 acrobat results in the giant strike missing (8= ac 1, miss) & sword (12) miss & dagger (12) miss (by 1!)

Round 4 is giant 1 thief 6, Gord attacks 17 hit, nat 1 miss for 6 damage (the player curses). The giant staggers about, at 6 hp, but attacks 7 (missing)...actually skip that the example is taking too long to play out with actual die rolls

if the character losses initiative in melee, claim they were caught out, seeking to land strikes of their own.

The important parts are that a) initiative is rolled every round b) combat rounds move fast in AD&D, c) segments only matter when they matter (basically when spells [or spell devices/powers] are cast). d) evasion is a mild bonus in most cases. It's always potentially far better vs ranged attacks; as I'd ague it applies to any attack the character is aware of & of small enough size, not needing initiative, and more creatures can shoot at a character than can engage in melee anyway.

tumble: evasion is the only ability of real note for the class, tumble: attack maybe is in some games, dependent on pummeling rules used/ruled on...and it's usually of negligible importance. Most play simply is not at L15+. It can be cool, and clutch on those blue moons or right circumstances though.

Initiative can be simple (as I'd suggest) or not. Even adding some complexity (generally on TIED results) or the seemingly difficult casting ideas doesn't have to be that hard.

 

[Genghis Don]

Yup. I ran B/X on Sunday with a similar method. I'm using side-based initiative on d6, with action declaration and the Morale/Movement/Missile/Magic/Melee sequence resolved a bit ad-hoc. In keeping with the example of play on B28, I'm allowing missiles and magic to pre-empt movement and melee if the sides are not at melee range and need to close, even if the shooter/caster's side lost initiative. Once you're actually engaged, though, initiative trumps and spells can get disrupted by melee attacks.

most people play & played AD&D with B/X initiative and never even knew it...so, yeah, this works too