Reading AD&D 1e Again for the First Time

[Philotomy Jurament]

Are enemies in fact allowed to do this?

I view the rules (especially the AD&D initiative rules) as guidelines for the DM to best adjudicate the situation. So my answer is "it depends."

I wouldn't let the enemies change their charge into a tactically superior option, but I might make it a "morale issue," especially if the distance took more than a few seconds to cover. For example, if the enemies charge, and there's time for them to see the PCs present a line of braced and glittering spears, I might roll for morale to see if the charge disintegrates in confusion, or if some individuals drop out.

If the enemies charge, and the PCs shout "we offer you tribute for passage," and there's sufficient time/distance to halt the charge, I might rule that the enemy commander orders a halt for further negotiations.

With the AD&D initiative rules and determining who does what when, my advice is to go with your gut and what makes sense, using the rules as a guide. The general rule is that 1d6 is rolled and high roll goes first. Everything else is a collection of exception cases for that general rule. Keep in mind that a round is a minute and the abstract nature of combat, and think about what makes sense. Can they halt the charge in time? Can the archer shoot before the charge covers that ground? Et cetera.

 

[Delta]

2. In combat, why would PCs ever declare their action to be "set weapons to receive a charge"? Because as I read the RAW, it seems that actions in combat are declared BEFORE knowing what the monsters are going to do (thus giving a more simultaneous feel to things). But wouldn't setting weapons to receive a charge be the kind of thing the PCs would only do in RESPONSE to seeing the monsters charge?

I'm going to come at this in a different direction, because I think the other answers got derailed a bit by the initiative question.

Obviously, we're talking about the 1E polearms here. To my knowledge, yes, characters have to declare "setting" weapons before they know a charge will take place. (Just like in 3E with the "ready" action, 3E's equivalent to this whole process.)

A couple things: My understanding is that 1E polearms weren't much intended for dungeoneering PC's in the first place. They're (a) big with a troublesome space-required figure, (b) very slow speed factor, (c) likely to have enemies get under your weapon and give up multiple attacks (by the complicated full DMG initiative rules). They're presented as a simulative add-on because they were important on medieval battlefields. The extra damage is only against charging Large-sized opponents (i.e., cavalry horses), excepting spears.

So it makes a bit more sense if you think how non-PCs will use them. They're in a mass formation outside in a large encounter. Maybe you've got a big array of soldiers/orcs who are facing down the PCs with them. Or maybe you've got a line of henchmen/hirelings hunkered down, protecting the party wizard while he casts spells. While it might be troubling to think of a PC "wasting an action" readying a polearm, it's not so troubling if you think of it in the hands of an associate in a larger party, as 1E was intended to play out.


As a side note, I'm philosophically against declaring action before initiative (except for spellcasting), so the problem of "can you change your action?" doesn't arise for me. Intelligent enemies are definitely capable of deciding to not charge a mass of polearms (in fact, that's actually the... um... point).

 

[Clavis]

1. The "one spell a day" thing about 1st and 2nd level magic-users has always bugged me about AD&D 1e (and for that matter, 2e). I just don't like the idea that the magic user has his one, lonely little spell which, once casted, renders him a weak, fleshy target until the following day. I remember that, as kids, we beefed up magic-users through a very nifty in-game process: the young 1st level apprentice was given a healthy heaping of scrolls and wands from his mentor as a "parting gift". "Use them wisely, and you may survive," he was told. Does anyone have any thoughts on this issue?

I think it's a good idea, although I would make it only a scroll of 3 or 4 spells. A wand of Magic missiles with only a few charges on it isn't a bad idea either. Low level Magic Users are meant to be challenging to play, so that when you actually survive you get a real feeling of accomplishment. Also, it wouldn't hurt to suggest the Magic User hires himself a man-at-arms as a bodyguard. Remember, hirelings and henchmen are a vital part of 1st Edition play, and the rules assume that PCs will employ them.

3. I can't envision how an assassin can work as a PC class. I remember reading an article David 'Zeb' Cook wrote in DRAGON to the same effect, that assassins, by their very nature, were counter-productive to the concept of a heroic, unified party. Does anyone have experience in making the evil assassin class workable within a party?

I've made Assassins work in a party before. First of all, 1st Edition does not assume that the PCs are heroes - they are adventurers, primarily motivated by a desire for wealth and adventure. Only the Paladin class assumes that the PC is inherently heroic.

One way to make the Assassin work is make him a secret agent type, not a killer for hire. Sort of a medieval James Bond. In the past, I've used the idea that the Assassin character was employed by a vigilante-like secret society. Sure the Assassin's still a bad guy, but what he fights is usually far worse. Another idea, one that features in my current campaign, is that the Assassin's Guild winds up actually pursuing and punishing murderers, in the name of maintaining its own criminal monopoly. So you have a gang of killers that spend much of their time solving murders, in order to send the message that nobody gets killed without Guild permission!

 

[Simon Atavax]

Remember, hirelings and henchmen are a vital part of 1st Edition play, and the rules assume that PCs will employ them.

Excellent point. This is one thing I'm really enjoying and finding intriguing about my "return" (after 28 years ) to AD&D 1e. Managing the henchmen and hirelings (for the players) and keeping careful track of the wonderfully detailed morale ruels (for me as DM) is going to greatly enrich the gaming experience, IMHO.

 

[thedungeondelver]

Excellent point. This is one thing I'm really enjoying and finding intriguing about my "return" (after 28 years ) to AD&D 1e. Managing the henchmen and hirelings (for the players) and keeping careful track of the wonderfully detailed morale ruels (for me as DM) is going to greatly enrich the gaming experience, IMHO.

Remember, infantry henchmen are typically good for only a single venture into a dungeon, then want their pay and dismissal.

 

[Simon Atavax]

Remember, infantry henchmen are typically good for only a single venture into a dungeon, then want their pay and dismissal.

Assuming they survive, of course.

 

[Nikosandros]

Remember, infantry henchmen are typically good for only a single venture into a dungeon, then want their pay and dismissal.

You mean hirelings, right? Henchmen are in for the long run.

 

[Simon Atavax]

You mean hirelings, right? Henchmen are in for the long run.

Actually, you're right:

"If henchmen are defined as the associates, companions, and loyal (to some degree) followers of a player character, hirelings are the servitors, mercenaries, and employees of such player characters" (Gygax, DMG, 29)

Although there is nothing to say a henchman won't cut and run if not treated well. I love the (surprisingly detailed) mechanics for henchmen loyalty checks (36-38).

 

[thedungeondelver]

You mean hirelings, right? Henchmen are in for the long run.

Yes, hirelings - I always get those two backwards.

 

[Nikosandros]

Although there is nothing to say a henchman won't cut and run if not treated well. I love the (surprisingly detailed) mechanics for henchmen loyalty checks (36-38).

There is nothing to reward players who dump charisma like having a henchmen flee in the middle of combat...