I'm going to run a 1e game

[Obryn]

Forgive me for being dense, but.. if you're using the 120' per round for combat, then at 120' using 1'' square is 3.33', you could move 36 squares in a comat round?

I'm really just trying to figure out how the encumbrance rules correlate to movement per combat round, heh. Perhaps that's too granular for the system?

Yeah, but remember that rounds last 1 full minute in AD&D. In 3e or 4e, you can certainly move 36 squares over the course of 10 rounds.

As for encumbrance, I'd keep it pretty basic. Many seasoned adventurers will drop their packs and extraneous gear before getting into a fight, if possible.

-O

 

[Chainsaw]

Yeah, but remember that rounds last 1 full minute in AD&D. In 3e or 4e, you can certainly move 36 squares over the course of 10 rounds.

As for encumbrance, I'd keep it pretty basic. Many seasoned adventurers will drop their packs and extraneous gear before getting into a fight, if possible.

-O

Makes sense. Trust me, I'm not looking to create any sort of super-realistic simuation that involves dozens and dozens of rolls.

 

[Obryn]

Makes sense. Trust me, I'm not looking to create any sort of super-realistic simuation that involves dozens and dozens of rolls.

Yeah, pretty much the lesson to be learned from this is that you can get into melee if you want to, from pretty much anywhere in the combat.

-O

 

[RFisher]

Breaking Ties

But simultaneous combat is such fun! I prefer to increase the chance of it happening instead of decreasing it.

Potentially stupid question here.. All the old official modules I'm reading use a 1 square = 10 feet scale. If I'm using miniatures, should I assume that each miniature takes up a whole square in combat? I think the 1E DMG has some language on number attackers, flanking, etc. (maybe page 69?) that suggests this, but it's never actually pointed out. I mean, I'm not supposed to be converting to 5' squares for battle or anything, right? Unless I want that, of course.

Simply visualize the situation and judge where combatants are and what they can do based on that. If using miniatures & a battlemat, you should only think of them as visual aids. Use whatever scale on the grid you want. Don’t try to play it like a miniatures game. That’s my advice.

 

[SableWyvern]

But simultaneous combat is such fun! I prefer to increase the chance of it happening instead of decreasing it.

A fair position to take. Personally, though, I like weapon speed for ties because it gives an occasional down-side to the generally better weapons, and an occasional bennie to the guy with the lighter one.

 

[Chainsaw]

But simultaneous combat is such fun! I prefer to increase the chance of it happening instead of decreasing it.

Simply visualize the situation and judge where combatants are and what they can do based on that. If using miniatures & a battlemat, you should only think of them as visual aids. Use whatever scale on the grid you want. Don’t try to play it like a miniatures game. That’s my advice.

I hear you. Back in my poor-as-dirt 2E days, we didn't even have miniatures. We'd occasionally break out the X's and O's on a piece of graph paper, but that was it, really.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I hear you. Back in my poor-as-dirt 2E days, we didn't even have miniatures. We'd occasionally break out the X's and O's on a piece of graph paper, but that was it, really.

Use your own judgement and try not to get too caught up in the grid. The whole 1 creature per square BS is what makes 3E and higher editions feel like a boardgame. Don't think of the squares as containment spaces for minis, just use the lines for range and distance reference. So what if you have an intense swirling melee that happens to have 5 or 6 guys in a 10' square. The world won't end and the combat keeps moving. Thats the beauty of old school.

 

[Thondor]

It just occurred to me that spells that enable specific targets have a great advantage over mundane means of attack if you use the 'random attack' rules for conventional weapons. I really like this.
I'm going to be skipping the battlemat entirely, certainly the grid. I think I may set up makers (this could be as simple as using smarties, or erasers) to indicate whose in what melee and whose not. (And help players better visualize their current number of foes.)
Replace 'facing' modifiers with a simple ruling of opponents get +1 per extra attack in that melee modified downwards by the number of combantants on your side.
So 1 PC versus 6 opponents: All opponents get a +5 on attack
2 PC versus 4 opponents: all opponents get a +2 on attack

4PCs versus 15 opponents: All opponents get a +1 only on their attacks. This is because the 4 PC's work together, defending each other/form a solid line ect.

There will of course be corner cases. That I'll make on the spot rulings.
One is PC's attacking most Large creature like a Giant or Dragon, these creatures are used to being attacked by multiple foes and this is factored into their AC. (I may change the ruling to creatures with multiple attacks ignore that many of opponents.)

This makes hordes of low HD creatures more dangerous. This I like.

 

[Betote]

I hear you. Back in my poor-as-dirt 2E days, we didn't even have miniatures. We'd occasionally break out the X's and O's on a piece of graph paper, but that was it, really.

That's still what I always do when DMing BD&D. In fact, That's what I do when DMing anything other than D&D 3+ or Savage Worlds.

Having an Umber Hulk mini, OTOH, is awesome