D&D 1E Common House Rules for AD&D?

[jdrakeh]

1. Roll d20 under most applicable attribute for "skill" checks.
2. Max damage on a "critical" hit (result of natural 20 on the die).
3. Ditched weapon speed factors and associated rules as they weren't explained very well.

 

[Lanefan]

Speaking of crit (and fumble) tables, I think the classic Good Hits & Bad Misses tables from Dragon 39 hold up pretty well and add some excitement and the occasional instant-kill to the game. They do require tracking whether characters are wearing helmets, as well as wielding shields.

I can't imagine a game where the players wouldn't track what their characters were wearing and carrying, particularly when it came to important gear like this.

 

[billd91]

Did you mean "hit the lower AC", or is it kinda blackjack thing that I am not quite getting my head around?

Yes, lower. I suppose I could use the term "better AC" to make it clearer for anyone thinking in increasing or decreasing AC.

 

[glass]

Yes, lower. I suppose I could use the term "better AC" to make it clearer for anyone thinking in increasing or decreasing AC.

That makes sense. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Mannahnin]

I can't imagine a game where the players wouldn't track what their characters were wearing and carrying, particularly when it came to important gear like this.

Shields it's usually obvious, but there can be circumstances when there's a surprise attack while a character's hands would logically be occupied and their shield slung, without it being explicitly stated.

Helmets I think is the one I remember being more nebulous. While 1E is pretty explicit (as I recall) that worn armor is assumed to include a helmet (or you're subject to that very interesting rule Gary put in the DMG about attacks on unarmored heads, not that I remember anyone ever actually using it), I'm not sure 2E was quite as clear on that. And I remember a LOT of players following examples from movies and heroic fantasy art and envisioning their characters without helmets on at least most of the time.

Definitely worth making sure people who can wear them know the benefits of helmets, if you're using those charts from Dragon 39!

 

[Lanefan]

Shields it's usually obvious, but there can be circumstances when there's a surprise attack while a character's hands would logically be occupied and their shield slung, without it being explicitly stated.

Well, yes; if you're surprised you never get the benefit of a shield even if it's on your arm.

Helmets I think is the one I remember being more nebulous. While 1E is pretty explicit (as I recall) that worn armor is assumed to include a helmet (or you're subject to that very interesting rule Gary put in the DMG about attacks on unarmored heads, not that I remember anyone ever actually using it), I'm not sure 2E was quite as clear on that. And I remember a LOT of players following examples from movies and heroic fantasy art and envisioning their characters without helmets on at least most of the time.

We all envision our characters without helmets because it's cool, but at the same time we all have our characters wear helmets because it's practical.

I think part of the reason Gygax put that rule in about unarmoured heads - and also included a separate table of helmets in the equipment section - was to allow players to mix-and-match if desired; with the default being that your helmet otherwise matched the rest of your armour.

Thus, if you wanted your Fighter to wear chain mail armour but have a metal half-helm instead of just the chain coif, you could do so. More common was the reverse; someone would want heavy-ish armour but a light helm to allow for better hearing and less chance of surprise.

Definitely worth making sure people who can wear them know the benefits of helmets, if you're using those charts from Dragon 39!

99% of the time these days we just default that the helm matches the armour. Once in a rare while someone will mix and match, at which point we pay more attention to head AC vs body AC.

 

[Cruentus]

Well, yes; if you're surprised you never get the benefit of a shield even if it's on your arm.

We all envision our characters without helmets because it's cool, but at the same time we all have our characters wear helmets because it's practical.

I think part of the reason Gygax put that rule in about unarmoured heads - and also included a separate table of helmets in the equipment section - was to allow players to mix-and-match if desired; with the default being that your helmet otherwise matched the rest of your armour.

Thus, if you wanted your Fighter to wear chain mail armour but have a metal half-helm instead of just the chain coif, you could do so. More common was the reverse; someone would want heavy-ish armour but a light helm to allow for better hearing and less chance of surprise.

99% of the time these days we just default that the helm matches the armour. Once in a rare while someone will mix and match, at which point we pay more attention to head AC vs body AC.

Helmets were always a strange thing in our games. In Ad&d it said that every suit of armor included a helmet. Wearing a helmet impacted your ability to hear noise, and whether you were surprised, if I'm remembering correctly. I don't think we ever actually played that way though...

We did pay attention when we used those same charts from Dragon #39.

I don't think we had very many house rules for Ad&d, at least not that we codified. We would roll rules/rulings in and out depending on whether they worked, we liked them, or that it added something to the mix. Mostly, I think, our house rules were NOT including lots of mechanics. LoL.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Sounds good. How do you handle multiple attacks? Is weapon reach a benefit at all, or is it just longer weapons are always slower, even when closing to melee? Do you do any kind of delayed onset for potions, or ditch that entirely?

All of an individuals attacks are resolved on their turn at the same time, but multiple melee attack routines get an initiative bonus: 2 routines = -1; 3 routines = -2, etc.

Obviously, if an opponent CAN be prevented from getting within their weapon's length, then an opposing combatant has reach. There are simply few situations that come to mind where that could/would happen. Combat IS otherwise abstracted in that regard - 1 minute rounds involve a lot of maneuver within a reasonable area; EACH side seeking their preferred distance without exposing themselves to dangerous counter-attack. Longer weapon still strikes first when charging. Also obviously, WSF still gives heavier/longer weapons slower speed. A spear or pike user would prefer to keep an opponent AT DISTANCE, but the opponent has their own ideas...

Potions still have 2-5 segment delayed onset, but it tends to get overlooked.

 

[Mannahnin]

Obviously, if an opponent CAN be prevented from getting within their weapon's length, then an opposing combatant has reach. There are simply few situations that come to mind where that could/would happen. Combat IS otherwise abstracted in that regard - 1 minute rounds involve a lot of maneuver within a reasonable area; EACH side seeking their preferred distance without exposing themselves to dangerous counter-attack. Longer weapon still strikes first when charging. Also obviously, WSF still gives heavier/longer weapons slower speed. A spear or pike user would prefer to keep an opponent AT DISTANCE, but the opponent has their own ideas...

I don't think I would reserve "longer weapon strikes first" for only when charging, but any time opponents close to melee (unless the longer reach combatant is already engaged up close by another combatant). But overall sounds pretty good.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

I don't think I would reserve "longer weapon strikes first" for only when charging, but any time opponents close to melee (unless the longer reach combatant is already engaged up close by another combatant). But overall sounds pretty good.

As with the original rules, if simply closing neither side gets melee attacks. It would be appropriate to have longer reach break initiative ties though. I may do that. Outside of that it really needs to fall back again to ABSTRACTION - which is what the system was SUPPOSEDLY based on given that the round was a minute long. Mine is a system that still tries to stick mostly to the results that btb 1E would have, just getting there in a much more sensible way. So, 1E's WSF aren't really a good REALISTIC model to be featuring since the values really are kinda backward from what they should be - longer weapons honestly SHOULD have more initiative priority to account for being able to fend off opponents, rather than being slower because they're typically heavier. Rather than redo all that (and more!) in an attempt at greater realism, I just want players to be able to handle something like the flawed 1E combat more easily. 1E (D&D in general!) is the wrong game entirely for genuine realism in combat.