Quasqueton
First Post
OK, what other major rule have you guys been hiding from me?
Quasqueton
I've never played AD&D1
- Thread starter Quasqueton
- Start date
Quasqueton
thedungeondelver
Adventurer
I use weapon v. armor type, but I do make adjustments for some weapons.
Moreover, I do use the "state your actions" because, despite the use of rounds and artificial "stop points" in a turn-based system, everything is going along without pause. A magic-user who decides to start casting sleep has started to cast it. No do-overs, no "oh no wait I don't do that!". The action has already begun. I am a little more lenient on the "without delay" part; I'll give some consideration for the tactical situation.
A lot of the more complicated and obscure rules in AD&D ("helmet rule," weapon speed vs. casting time comparison that involves an absolute value calculation, the entire DMG unarmed combat system, etc.) are definitely more trouble than they're worth, but I really fell in love with the AD&D surprise rules when I discovered them c. 2002 (after close to 20 years of using B/X D&D rules like everyone else) and wouldn't want to do without them. They completely change the shape of combat in the game, making high Dex (and the elf and halfling racial and ranger class surprise bonus) much more important, and making the primary tactical consideration of the game how to both achieve surprise and avoid being surprised as often as possible. Ambushes become much more common, using scouts (especially a high-Dex elf, halfling, or ranger) becomes much more common. Many combats that begin with one side having surprise (especially 3 or 4 segments worth) will be over before the other side ever gets a chance to react!
So that particular bit, at least, I'd be very hesitant to drop because, at least IMO, it improves the game and makes things much more tactically interesting. But most of that other stuff (e.g. "Attacks directed at spell casters will come on that segment of the round shown on the opponent's or on their own side's initiative die, whichever is applicable" -- with absolutely no indication how you're supposed to decide which is applicable!) I agree -- Yuck!
(Oh, and FWIW add me to the group surprised by the surprise/revulsion at the "declare actions before rolling initiative" rule in AD&D -- I've always done this, even before I was playing (or rather attempting to play) "RAW" AD&D -- at the beginning of each round I go around the table asking each player quickly what they're going to do this round, then initiative is rolled (by group, not by individual), then all actions are resolved in order (as decided by me); in RAW AD&D a declaration phase is absolutely necessary because different initiative procedures apply to different actions -- if you're moving a different procedure applies than if you're fighting in melee than applies than if you're firing a missile than applies if you're casting a spell or using a device than applies if you're attempting to grapple or overbear, etc. so it's absolutely essential to know what everyone is intending to do before the initiative dice are rolled.)
So that particular bit, at least, I'd be very hesitant to drop because, at least IMO, it improves the game and makes things much more tactically interesting. But most of that other stuff (e.g. "Attacks directed at spell casters will come on that segment of the round shown on the opponent's or on their own side's initiative die, whichever is applicable" -- with absolutely no indication how you're supposed to decide which is applicable!) I agree -- Yuck!
(Oh, and FWIW add me to the group surprised by the surprise/revulsion at the "declare actions before rolling initiative" rule in AD&D -- I've always done this, even before I was playing (or rather attempting to play) "RAW" AD&D -- at the beginning of each round I go around the table asking each player quickly what they're going to do this round, then initiative is rolled (by group, not by individual), then all actions are resolved in order (as decided by me); in RAW AD&D a declaration phase is absolutely necessary because different initiative procedures apply to different actions -- if you're moving a different procedure applies than if you're fighting in melee than applies than if you're firing a missile than applies if you're casting a spell or using a device than applies if you're attempting to grapple or overbear, etc. so it's absolutely essential to know what everyone is intending to do before the initiative dice are rolled.)
Ed_Laprade
Adventurer
Like most others we cherry picked the rules we used. Declare actions before rolling init? Sure. But if the situation changed, so did our actions. (Let's see, I said I was going to cross the room and hit the Orc. But the Orc crossed the room and hit me, so I guess I'll just stand here and hit him back anyway. Or Jim took him out with missle fire so I'll go whack the one that was standing next to him.)
Quasqueton
First Post
This is how I always handled initiative and actions:
One Player rolls d6 for the PCs.
DM rolls d6 for the opposition.
Side with highest result goes first. PCs go in order of their Dex bonus. (We’d usually always sit in order of our PCs’ Dexterity, so the DM could just go left to right around the table.)
On a PC’s turn, the Player “declares” his action and rolls the dice for that action. Multiple attacks happened all in that turn. (Much as in D&D3. I almost think initiative bonuses should come from Intelligence rather than Dexterity.)
Quasqueton
One Player rolls d6 for the PCs.
DM rolls d6 for the opposition.
Side with highest result goes first. PCs go in order of their Dex bonus. (We’d usually always sit in order of our PCs’ Dexterity, so the DM could just go left to right around the table.)
On a PC’s turn, the Player “declares” his action and rolls the dice for that action. Multiple attacks happened all in that turn. (Much as in D&D3. I almost think initiative bonuses should come from Intelligence rather than Dexterity.)
Quasqueton
Nikosandros
Golden Procrastinator
Until very recently (ant then basically as a fun experiment0 I had never run an AD&D game with "all" the rules. I guess that most of the time I've run games with influence from 2e and BD&D and with extra house rule on the top...
On the other hand, I've always used the rule that requires player to state their intentions in advance. Didn't the round in Mentzer begin with statement of intent?
On the other hand, I've always used the rule that requires player to state their intentions in advance. Didn't the round in Mentzer begin with statement of intent?
Mark Hope
Hero
We started off not using all of the 1e rules (also having come from B/X). Then we went through a lengthy phase of using every last one. We even used the Weapon vs AC rules, but they weren't really a problem thanks to a couple of very cool articles in White Dwarf that laid out combat tables for each and every weapon in the game, adjusted for AC 
. Simply put, we were crazy obsessed teens and we learned the rules as befitted our mania. The game went at a cracking pace, but over time we ditched a number of the finer points (and yes, Weapons vs AC was the first to go, lol). As much as we had the rules under our belts, we figured that we could up the pace even more with less to keep track of - which was of course the case. As far as combat goes, I thought that AD&D2e had a more streamlined system, so we were happy to adopt that when it rolled around.
. Simply put, we were crazy obsessed teens and we learned the rules as befitted our mania. The game went at a cracking pace, but over time we ditched a number of the finer points (and yes, Weapons vs AC was the first to go, lol). As much as we had the rules under our belts, we figured that we could up the pace even more with less to keep track of - which was of course the case. As far as combat goes, I thought that AD&D2e had a more streamlined system, so we were happy to adopt that when it rolled around.
Philotomy Jurament
First Post
I played a mix of Holmes, OAD&D, and B/X for many years. I didn't run a RAW OAD&D game until pretty late (after UA came out). I like my OAD&D leavened with B/X, actually. Or maybe that should be my B/X supplemented with OAD&D. (This is one reason I think I took to Castles & Crusades -- it's very easy to tweak with whatever ruleset or subsystem you like.)
ColonelHardisson
What? Me Worry?
Garnfellow said:
Gygax has said, right on these very message boards, that he himself didn't use weapon speed factors, and only included them as a sop to wargamers who were asking for something like that.
