AD&D 2E On AD&D 2E

[PHATsakk43]

It is written in the core books somewhere, but I can’t remember where it is. It may be clarified in a Sage Advice post or in Tome of Magic or Book or Artifacts as well.

However, in the example of individual initiative options on pg 95 in the PHB, Rath rolls a 2, has modified weapon speed of 0 due to a +4 axe and -2 due to haste and has initiative 0. So, zero via modifiers is definitely RAW.

I’ve always ran a modified roll of 0 as the fastest, except explicit stated effects where “X goes first” or “X goes last”.

 

[rabindranath72]

If that’s how a fighter with multiple attacks worked in 1E, that’s broken AF. 2E rules for multiple attacks was the first was in order of initiative plus modifiers, subsequent attacks after all others were done, and in order of initiative if more than one character had multiple attacks.

That didn’t apply to things like dual wielding or claw/claw/bite attack routines, as these were all to occur at the same time.

Again, you can have any opinion you want, but I think you’re going to be hard pressed to find many people who will defend 1E initiative. Gary didn’t even use it for instance.

It goes without saying I can have any opinion I want and generally I couldn't care less about others' opinions (including Gygax's).
That said, and just for context, I started with BECMI, then moved to AD&D2e in 1989, played till 2003, then learned 1e; 2e is the edition that I played consistently longer than any other edition. So it's not that I don't know how 2e works, or don't like it. I just happen to find the way 1e treated fighters to be more satisfying. They are not 'broken'; they are just different. Keep in mind that in 1e you can move and attack in the same round only if you charge (which brings a penalty to AC), to the contrary of 2e. And to charge and attack a spellcaster you must be close enough that the time it takes to reach and attack must be smaller than the casting time, so typically a spellcaster would be pressed to use fast spells or magic items. 2e tends to make the life of spellcasters easier, which is something I don't like in general. YMMV and all that jazz.

 

[James Gasik]

It is written in the core books somewhere, but I can’t remember where it is. It may be clarified in a Sage Advice post or in Tome of Magic or Book or Artifacts as well.

However, in the example of individual initiative options on pg 95 in the PHB, Rath rolls a 2, has modified weapon speed of 0 due to a +4 axe and -2 due to haste and has initiative 0. So, zero via modifiers is definitely RAW.

I’ve always ran a modified roll of 0 as the fastest, except explicit stated effects where “X goes first” or “X goes last”.

Ah, thank you, as I was then. I didn't think to look in that section because it's listed as an optional rule, even though the only change is that each player rolls initiative rather than the side.

 

[PHATsakk43]

Ah, thank you, as I was then. I didn't think to look in that section because it's listed as an optional rule, even though the only change is that each player rolls initiative rather than the side.

I think the initiative roll is the same, it just depends on if it’s individual or group.

The initiative modifiers in the PHB and DMG are core; weapon speed, item and innate ability speed, and casting times are optional. Individual initiative is also an option. The writer in the PHB actually suggests using both though. Individual for small groups and group for larger ones.

Again, 2E IMHO has the best approach to initiative. The system used in Players’ Option: Combat & Tactics is probably better still actually. Where they just broke up specific actions/spells/weapons in speed groups. If you’re the only person in the “fast” phase of combat, you don’t even bother with rolling. You just act on your phase.

 

[Staffan]

The whole weapon speed as an initiative modifier is kind of nonsense anyway. I mean, you may be able to physically make a stabbing motion with a dagger a fair bit faster than someone with an a broadsword can make a swinging motion, but in most cases a fight between the two would give the sword wielder the opportunity to strike first, before the dagger wielder could get close enough. Now, D&D combat is fairly abstract, and hit points make things wonky with regard to things that normally rely on self-preservation instinct, so I think this is one place where system complexity adds illusory realism. Just basing initiative on Dexterity (or perhaps Intelligence), or making it wholly random and just use situational modifiers, is probably at least as realistic as either the C&T system or the individual initiative system in core 2e.

In a system where combat is less abstract weapon speed can have its use. For example, the old version of the Swedish RPG Eon gave each melee weapon two speed factors: one for when you entered melee which was mostly based on reach, and one for seizing initiative from your opponent which was based on ease of handling. So a regular sword would have a speed of 3/3, while a spear would be 4/2. So when opening combat the spear wielder would have the advantage, but assuming the sword wielder doesn't get kebabed they'll have an advantage seizing the initiative – once inside the spear's reach, the sword is at an advantage. In that system, the options available to attackers (the ones with initiative) and defenders (the ones without) are also quite different, and combat could be pretty lethal.

 

[James Gasik]

Yeah, that is the weird thing about weapon speed- it seems mostly based not on attack speed, so much as how long it takes to recover from a swing to make another attack.

 

[Bill Zebub]

On a scale from 1-10, how much do people like THAC0?

Wait...which is better, 1 or 10?

(oh, this was a necro. never mind.)

 

[PHATsakk43]

The whole weapon speed as an initiative modifier is kind of nonsense anyway. I mean, you may be able to physically make a stabbing motion with a dagger a fair bit faster than someone with an a broadsword can make a swinging motion, but in most cases a fight between the two would give the sword wielder the opportunity to strike first, before the dagger wielder could get close enough. Now, D&D combat is fairly abstract, and hit points make things wonky with regard to things that normally rely on self-preservation instinct, so I think this is one place where system complexity adds illusory realism. Just basing initiative on Dexterity (or perhaps Intelligence), or making it wholly random and just use situational modifiers, is probably at least as realistic as either the C&T system or the individual initiative system in core 2e.

In a system where combat is less abstract weapon speed can have its use. For example, the old version of the Swedish RPG Eon gave each melee weapon two speed factors: one for when you entered melee which was mostly based on reach, and one for seizing initiative from your opponent which was based on ease of handling. So a regular sword would have a speed of 3/3, while a spear would be 4/2. So when opening combat the spear wielder would have the advantage, but assuming the sword wielder doesn't get kebabed they'll have an advantage seizing the initiative – once inside the spear's reach, the sword is at an advantage. In that system, the options available to attackers (the ones with initiative) and defenders (the ones without) are also quite different, and combat could be pretty lethal.

I think your misinterpreting my point that 2E initiative is the best—from a game perspective.

I really don’t care if it’s simulationist. If that’s the case, PO:C&T is probably much better as it was the first time we saw the combat round drop to a reasonable 6-15sec versus 1min.

That’s been the default since with combat rounds being 6-10 seconds.

 

[Emerikol]

As far as the “tone” goes, one of the best things about 2E compared with 1E, was the lack of “tone”.

Having never read the 1E books until really this year, there is a lot more explicit, “this is how you play” in Gary’s writing than Zeb’s. 2E left the table flavor out of the ruleset beyond a basic, “this is a game where you pretend to be heroes in a quasi medieval fantasy world” to the DM or for those who didn’t home brew their world, published campaigns.

I think for those of us growing up with 1e the tone and style of play prescribed was very strongly internalized. We love the Gygaxian style of game. I think to be honest I am a bit more serious than Gygax and not as quick to do something as a joke. Otherwise though I think his words of wisdom have stood me in good stead over the years.

 

[deganawida]

I don’t think that anyone used 1E initiative RAW. It was probably the worst mechanic of the entire game.1E initiative was so bad, it alone could have warranted a 2nd edition. To that end, weapon mastery rules and fight style specialization did boost initiative for fighters in 2E so, they would strike not only harder and more often, but also earlier in the combat round.

I’ll also say that 2E initiative was the best out of any of the TSR or WotC editions. “Lower is better” is a better mechanism for initiative. Having a bounding floor value for the “fastest” action is better than any of the d20 games. The d10 provides enough variability to allow for some “luck” in the combat sequence but keeps everything fairly tight unlike a d20. The d6 initiative was fine if weapon speeds, casting times, and other initiative modifiers from AD&D were used.

It also highlights an inherent problem with “higher as better” as a design choice which caused both the ridiculous DCs of 3/3.5 and the introduction of bounded accuracy (which also is IMHO a hack to stick with “higher is better” design). AD&D and other TSR D&D games were touted as being “too complicated” because of not having an inherent and single core mechanic. Which I suppose is somewhat of an intuitive concept, until you consider the constraints of constantly increasing DC targets and the associated constantly increasing skill bonus associated with the DC roll.

Initiative isn’t the only thing that this applies to either, as the “roll under” mechanic for ability score checks and NWPs is also better (IMHO) than the DC system, period. “Roll under” and “lower is better” are slightly different as the former also allows for “Price is Right rules” for skill or ability score challenges. Additionally, it made 2E psionics the best implementation of a mostly bad system of any other variety of D&D.

Having a system that has the “DC” something inherent to the character opposed to some arbitrary target value also creates a path to avoid things that shouldn’t either increase with class level. 2E NWPs were the best skill system the game has had because of this. I suppose technically, they are nearly identical to “1.5” NWPs, so they really aren’t solely a 2E thing.

Thank you for more eloquently stating what I have also argued in the past, which is the whole "floor being better" thing.