D&D 1E Just got done running some 1e

[the Jester]

Another odd feature of 1st ed AD&D - rather than an auto-hit, a roll of 20 counts as a 25 on the die. (Is there a rule that a 1 is an auto-miss?)

You are correct that a natural 20 is not an automatic hit; but where do you get that it counts as a 25? Is that an extrapolation of the "repeating 20s" phenomenon on the attack matrices?

 

[MerricB]

Another odd feature of 1st ed AD&D - rather than an auto-hit, a roll of 20 counts as a 25 on the die. (Is there a rule that a 1 is an auto-miss?)

This is possibly true. But, like many things in the combat chapter, there are contradictory rules by Gygax.

AD&D uses to-hit charts rather than THAC0, and repeats the number 20 six times on the chart. According to the primary reading, you roll the die, add or subtract all modifiers, and then see if you've beaten the number on the attack matrix.

Thus, a first level magic-user with a 6 strength (-1 to hit) can roll a 20 on the die... and only hit AC 2. The modified die roll is a 19, so it loses out on hitting all the repeated 20s. (A magic-user with a 9 strength would hit up to AC -4 with a natural 20).

Meanwhile, a first level fighter with a 18/00 strength (+3 to hit) will hit AC -8 with a roll of a natural 20... but even a roll of 19 will hit AC -7!

However, page 82 of the DMG gives an optional reading to those repeated 20s, giving the option of making all but the first of them achievable only with a natural 20. So, where a first level fighter has repeated 20s on the AC 0 to AC -5 lines, the 18/00 strength fighter will be able to hit AC 0 on a roll of natural 17 or better, but will require a natural 20 to hit AC -1 through -5. However, this doesn't change the poor wizard with a 6 Strength's numbers, and so natural 20 still only hits AC 2.

These rules are based on what's on page 82, along with the notes on Using the Combat Tables on page 73.

However, to muddy the waters even further, Gygax includes an 'Important Note Regarding "To Hit" Adjustments' on page 70, which states that spell modifiers "to hit" must be made to the Armour Class of the creature affected rather than the die roll, as otherwise it will cause some creatures to be 'hit proof'. 'By so doing it is still possible for opponents to roll natural 20s and thus score hits'.

Right...

The rule for automatically missing on a natural 1 exists for saving throws (page 79), but not (as far as I can see) for attack rolls. Indeed, you actually get negative numbers "to hit" at the highest points on the tables, not repeated "2", which you might expect if there's an automatic miss rule. Gygax indeed eventually developed a rule for what those negative numbers mean:

* If a player rolls a (modified) negative to hit score and still hits the target, the damage is reduced by that (negative) score. (Example: A player rolls a modified score of -4 and hits an AC 8 creature with a long sword. The damage is 1d8-4 with a minimum of 1 point of damage).
* If a monster has a negative to hit score, the attack is an automatic hit and the absolute value of the "to hit" number is added to its damage (Example: a 24 HD creature attacks a 10 AC wizard. This requires a -8 to hit, so the attack automatically hits and deals +8 damage).

These rules are given in Isle of the Ape, and you'll note that the application of negative modifiers directly to the attack roll that are required for the first additional rule directly contradict the DMG page 70 rules, where those negative modifiers would instead affect the Armour Class...

Cheers!

 

[pemerton]

You are correct that a natural 20 is not an automatic hit; but where do you get that it counts as a 25? Is that an extrapolation of the "repeating 20s" phenomenon on the attack matrices?

Yes, it is in extrapolation in the way you describe. [MENTION=3586]MerricB[/MENTION] gives a more detailed discussion in his reply - my extrapolation is based on not using the optional rule on p 82 that all those other 20s must be natural.

These rules are based on what's on page 82, along with the notes on Using the Combat Tables on page 73.

However, to muddy the waters even further, Gygax includes an 'Important Note Regarding "To Hit" Adjustments' on page 70, which states that spell modifiers "to hit" must be made to the Armour Class of the creature affected rather than the die roll, as otherwise it will cause some creatures to be 'hit proof'. 'By so doing it is still possible for opponents to roll natural 20s and thus score hits'.

Yes, I've been re-reading the AD&D action rules recently (both PC build and action resolution) and I also noticed the contradiction between p 70, which says to use penalties to hit as AC adjustments, and p 73, which says (falsely, it seems to me, for the very reasons that you give) that it doesn't matter which way you do it.

In the context of those repeating 20s, I think the most elegant way to make the system work is to treat the repeating 20s as non-natural, to use the advice on p 70 rather than on p 73, to treat a roll of 20 as 25, and to rule that a hit occurs if roll + bonus to hit + AC > 20.

But I agree that this is not the only possibility that the rules leave open.

 

[Silver Moon]

Great! My weekly group still uses 1st Edition rules. We've just finished our 1250th game in almost 32 years.

 

[Celebrim]

Great! My weekly group still uses 1st Edition rules. We've just finished our 1250th game in almost 32 years.

That's a lot of gaming.

 

[the Jester]

Great! My weekly group still uses 1st Edition rules. We've just finished our 1250th game in almost 32 years.

I'm coming up on 1000 since I started this campaign setting!

 

[Grazzt]

Yay! Just got done running some 1st Edition; it was awesome. I got to use some rules I never (or barely) used back in the day- things like "longer weapons attack first when someone charges" and xp for gold. It was a ton of fun, the second session of a first-level party (involving the three pcs from session 1 pursuing a group of bandits who stole their tribe's tribute money for a hobgoblin army that marauds in the area meeting up with the three new pcs, who are also seeking money for their tribe to pay off said hobgoblins). They fought a band of goblins with some wolves, killing a few goblins, driving most of the rest off and taking a prisoner, who then led them to a ruin where the band had buried its treasure. Investigating the ruin, the pcs found a hidden button behind a portrait; when they pushed it, they opened a secret door that released some skeletons who were guarding an old prison. One of the clerics turned them, and the party passed through another door that led to the cells and a receiving room. A voice kept calling from within one of the cells, seeking aid, but the pcs were suspicious. Then the turning keeping the skeletons at bay wore off, and I called the session as they attacked the party from behind.

Ahhhh, 1e, I lurve you still. <3

Cool stuff Jester. How'd you handle "skill checks"? One thing my players (and me sometimes as DM) have had a hard time adjusting to (for lack of a better phrase) is "skill checks". After years of 3.x and PF and then going back to 1e for a bit, seems weird to go back to NWP or simple roll under ability score (+/- modifier based on situation). It makes sense, and flows smoothly, and is less fiddly for sure that skill points (mostly unless you toss in the 2e S&P stuff i guess), but sometimes it's hard to adjust.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

To that end I suggest using the 'Weapon vs. AC' modifiers. The way to do this without having it interfere with combat is to precompute it once. Simply for each character right down their own to hit table with all their usual to hit modifiers figured in. That way they only need report what they rolled, and you'll know whether they hit. In point of fact, this will speed play as players have an annoying habit of reading their individual modifiers up again with every attack, adding several seconds to each players turn.

I played AD&D with very nearly all the rules, but this is one of the big exceptions. I just couldn't ever get it to run smoothly in play, no matter how much I liked the idea.

I always meant to try a simplified version of it but never got around to it. The simplified version was a table of weapon type: blunt, cutting, poking versus armor types: soft (leather, cloth), flexible (chain), and hard (plate etc). It seemed like a little 3x3 matrix would be easier to track, and by making every adjustment >= 0, the players would be motivated to keep track of their own adjustment and I wouldn't have to do it. I'd still like to try it out someday...

 

[the Jester]

Cool stuff Jester. How'd you handle "skill checks"? One thing my players (and me sometimes as DM) have had a hard time adjusting to (for lack of a better phrase) is "skill checks". After years of 3.x and PF and then going back to 1e for a bit, seems weird to go back to NWP or simple roll under ability score (+/- modifier based on situation). It makes sense, and flows smoothly, and is less fiddly for sure that skill points (mostly unless you toss in the 2e S&P stuff i guess), but sometimes it's hard to adjust.

I had everyone choose a one-word background, e.g. "Guide", akin to a secondary skill, that covers the "do you know how to do this?" end of the question. I go with "roll as high as you can without exceeding your stat"; the dice you roll depends on the difficulty. So for instance, if the difficulty is "An average guy can usually do it", you might have to roll stat or less on 2d6.

 

[Emirikol]

I love these threads. It is just great to hear. I reminisce about my BD&D fighter, Taraz, and my "whatshisname" Assassin that got fried by a Lich. I used to beg my friend's brother all the time to play. So many great memories.