AD&D 1E Snarf's Challenge: Was it Possible to Play 1e RAW? SHARE YOUR STORIES!

[Sacrosanct]

Voadam went in-depth about one (it's just one- there are others, but it's a doozie) of the internal conflicts that exist in the rules- essentially, why you can't play 1e RAW.

I still don't necessarily agree with this. We are playing using the rules as described in the books for initiative. Again, I think some of this comes down to a bit of ambiguity on rules' translation so another table might be a bit differently, but as far as we can tell, we are playing RAW. I won't lie, those first few sessions were painful. A combat encounter took forever as you were comparing die rolls with weapon speed factors and spell casting times and if someone was moving or if someone else was firing a missile weapon, etc. And then when you did determine when it was your turn, weapon vs. armor and other stuff came up. (and we haven't even talked about how creatures with multiple attacks impact attack order, geeesh...)

Which goes back to my original thread a few months ago. You could probably pay 1e RAW, but why would you ever want to? No one else did. Not Gary, not Tim, not anyone involved in TSR at the time.

 

[Celebrim]

My interpretation of p.65 is that if a spellcaster begins a combat round adjacent to a melee combatant then they should not even attempt casting.

"Spells cannot be cast while violently moving -- such as running, dodging a blow, or even walking normally."

As I played the game, this is correct. A M-U in melee combat could not cast a spell. In 3e D&D terms trying to cast a spell in melee drew an attack of opportunity, and a successful hit automatically ruined the spell. Concentration checks or combat casting just didn't exist. Spell-casters in melee had to rely on wands or staves, and as a practical matter had to maintain a wall of 'meat shields' between themselves and opponents in order to be successful. Of course, as you note, attempting to charge a spellcaster to get off a melee attack was always difficult. That's consistent between both BECMI (where spells just go off first IIRC) and AD&D, where spells just tend to be faster than weapons.

 

[Sacrosanct]

The closest I can find is on page 65 of the DMG under Spellcasting in Melee.

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. (If the spell caster’s side won the initiative with a roll of 5, the attack must come then, not on the opponent’s losing roll of 4 or less.) Thus, all such attacks will occur on the 1st-6th segments of the round.

So I guess attacks are supposed to happen on segments 1-6 (inverse of the d6 roll?) and that is when spells begin casting?

Ah but then you have weapon speed factors on DMG page 66-67

Other Weapon Factor Determinants: The speed factor of a weapon also determines when the weapon strikes during the course of the round with respect to opponents who are engaged in activity other than striking blows. Thus, suppose side A, which has achieved initiative (action) for the round, has a magic-user engaged in casting a spell. Compare the speed factor of the weapon with the number of segments which the spell will require to cast to determine if the spell or the weapon will be cast/strike first, subtracting the losing die roll on the initiative die roll from the weapon factor and treating negative results as positive. Example: A sword with a factor of 5 (broad or long) is being used by an opponent of a magic-user attempting to cast a fireball spell (3 segment casting time). If the sword-wielding attacker was represented by a losing initiative die roll of 1, the spell will be cast prior to the sword’s blow. A 2 will indicate that the spell and the blow are completed simultaneously. A 3-5 will indicate that the blow has a chance of striking (if a successful “to hit” roll is made) before the spell is cast, arriving either as the spell is begun or during the first segment of its casting. Suppose instead that a dagger were being employed. It has a speed factor of only 2, so it will strike prior to spell completion if the initiative roll which lost was 1-4 (the adjusted segment indicator being 1, 0, 1, 2 respectively) and simultaneously if the die score was a 5. If the weapon being employed was a two-handed sword (or any other weapon with a speed factor of 10, or 9 for that matter) there would be no chance for the reacting side to strike the spell caster prior to completion of the fireball. Note that even though a spell takes but 1segment to complete, this is 6 seconds, and during that period a reacting attacker might be able to attack the magic-user or other spell caster prior to actual completion of the spell! If combat is simultaneous, there is no modification of the weapon speed factor.

So weapon speed counts as segments similar to spell casting time segments, but only if not engaging someone who is also trying to trade blows with you (unless you tie your initiative roll that round in which case it is pulled back in for who goes first in striking, unless closing in which case it is weapon length that goes first).

Let me see if I can explain using an example of how we have been doing it.

The sword attacker lost initiative, so they can't go before the caster's initiative no matter what. But, there is an opportunity to attack before the spell goes off because the spell caster is not "striking blows" (attacking back), but doing something different, like standing still and waving their hands. So subtract the 1 from the sword's SF of 5, resulting in 4. 4 is more than 3, so the spell still goes off.

If the wizard rolled a 4 and the warrior rolled a 3 for initiative, then 5-3 = 2, which is less than the fireball's 3, so the attack goes off before the spell.

It should be noted that weapon speed factor is not always used. There are only certain cases where it is (initiative ties, activities that are not striking blows.) So in most cases, whoever wins initiative just goes first. Thank God for that at least.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I still don't necessarily agree with this. We are playing using the rules as described in the books for initiative. Again, I think some of this comes down to a bit of ambiguity on rules' translation so another table might be a bit differently, but as far as we can tell, we are playing RAW. I won't lie, those first few sessions were painful. A combat encounter took forever as you were comparing die rolls with weapon speed factors and spell casting times and if someone was moving or if someone else was firing a missile weapon, etc. And then when you did determine when it was your turn, weapon vs. armor and other stuff came up. (and we haven't even talked about how creatures with multiple attacks impact attack order, geeesh...)

Which goes back to my original thread a few months ago. You could probably pay 1e RAW, but why would you ever want to? No one else did. Not Gary, not Tim, not anyone involved in TSR at the time.

I don't want to get into a back-and-forth and try or try to imply that I am making less of what I believe to be a wonderful experience, so I will simply reiterate the two things that I have said before-

1. There are actual rules conflicts that prohibit playing 1e completely RAW.

2. Further, while I truly admire the fact that you are trying to play with as many possible options and rules "on," I would be willing to bet a tidy some of money that you don't have ... every single one ... on as written. Again, that's not a dismissive answer- the simple fact that you are, inter alia, trying to apply the initiative rules and the correct missile weapon firing rules etc. If you want to go through each and every rule ... are you rolling for every attack against PCs without helmets, and then calculating AC values for the helmet / lack of helmet prior to the "to hit" roll with an AC 10, with 50% of attacks against AC 10 by intelligent opponents? ... do you modify the AC modifier of the shield depending on the handedness of your character and the flank of the attack? do you properly convert the AC adjustments for weapons - they are against specificarmor types (table on DMG 73), not AC values, and as such only have the modifiers against that type of armor, unless the monster is of a type whose skin is similar to an armor type ... and so on).

I mean ... I haven't even gone into the interaction of the Pursuit / Evasion subsystem and the morale rules yet- which are a doozy (and I have had to houserule extensively).

Again, I am trying to give you all the roses! I'm pretty sure you mentioned that you weren't the one running it- do you want to ask the DM if they have houseruled or "harmonized" any of the various bits?

 

[Sacrosanct]

I don't want to get into a back-and-forth and try or try to imply that I am making less of what I believe to be a wonderful experience, so I will simply reiterate the two things that I have said before-

1. There are actual rules conflicts that prohibit playing 1e completely RAW.

2. Further, while I truly admire the fact that you are trying to play with as many possible options and rules "on," I would be willing to bet a tidy some of money that you don't have ... every single one ... on as written. Again, that's not a dismissive answer- the simple fact that you are, inter alia, trying to apply the initiative rules and the correct missile weapon firing rules etc. If you want to go through each and every rule ... are you rolling for every attack against PCs without helmets, and then calculating AC values for the helmet / lack of helmet prior to the "to hit" roll with an AC 10, with 50% of attacks against AC 10 by intelligent opponents? ... do you modify the AC modifier of the shield depending on the handedness of your character and the flank of the attack? do you properly convert the AC adjustments for weapons - they are against specificarmor types (table on DMG 73), not AC values, and as such only have the modifiers against that type of armor, unless the monster is of a type whose skin is similar to an armor type ... and so on).

yes. We do. Which is why I keep saying combat takes forever. Constantly checking the rules. I do not advocate it.

I mean ... I haven't even gone into the interaction of the Pursuit / Evasion subsystem and the morale rules yet- which are a doozy (and I have had to houserule extensively).

Again, I am trying to give you all the roses! I'm pretty sure you mentioned that you weren't the one running it- do you want to ask the DM if they have houseruled or "harmonized" any of the various bits?

And I'm saying I'm not seeing these direct contradictions. I've seen a lot of folks say they exist, but can't really point them out in detail of why or what it contradicts with. Like the initiative thing above. There are no contradictions there as I explained in my reply. It's not user-friendly, it's confusing, but it's not directly contradictory. There are several "if this, then use this rule", but that's not the same as being contradictory. Just a different if/then statement.

 

[Lanefan]

Mage says "I cast fireball into the 10x10 room". The rest of the party standing along the hallway outside the entrance "NO!". Followed by backstabbing our mage becoming the objective as a survival thing.

My namesake character - a Fighter who's been fried by his own side far too many times over the years - keeps a wizard-slayer longsword on hand for exactly this reason.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

yes. We do. Which is why I keep saying combat takes forever. Constantly checking the rules. I do not advocate it.

And I'm saying I'm not seeing these direct contradictions. I've seen a lot of folks say they exist, but can't really point them out in detail of why or what it contradicts with. Like the initiative thing above. There are no contradictions there as I explained in my reply. It's not user-friendly, it's confusing, but it's not directly contradictory. There are several "if this, then use this rule", but that's not the same as being contradictory. Just a different if/then statement.

I keep trying to tell you that it's not possible. If you think you are doing it, great! I have been trying to express my admiration for this project. Some time ago, I attempted to play "all rules on" and I didn't get as far as what you are saying you are doing because I was using all the rules and it doesn't work.

So I assume that at the beginning of each round, each and every player immediately declares their actions for the round for their characters and for any PC-directed characters. You are not allowed to converse or plan with the other players, because if you do, that's considered to be the characters talking aloud to each other, and will be considered time subtracted from your combat round. In addition, if you declare a course of action that will take longer than the melee combat round then your character is committed to that regardless of how long it will take (even multiple rounds).

Again, that's the actual rule. And if you don't declare your decision immediately, but are thinking about it, the time you spent thinking will also count against you (in segments, of course).


It's your call. If you really believe that you're playing with all the rules, we can keep going through them- I love discussing 1e Rules!!!!! And there's a lot more than just combat. You rolled your ages randomly and applied the ability modifiers. This isn't optional (it's a must use). Height and weight were also randomly determined by table for each PC, with the optional use of the variation table. You already rolled for your maximum age (important for, inter alia, ghosts). You are "correctly" using Thief abilities per the DMG (the DM rolls for all thief abilities). And so on.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I keep trying to tell you that it's not possible. If you think you are doing it, great! I have been trying to express my admiration for this project. Some time ago, I attempted to play "all rules on" and I didn't get as far as what you are saying you are doing because I was using all the rules and it doesn't work.

So I assume that at the beginning of each round, each and every player immediately declares their actions for the round for their characters and for any PC-directed characters. You are not allowed to converse or plan with the other players, because if you do, that's considered to be the characters talking aloud to each other, and will be considered time subtracted from your combat round. In addition, if you declare a course of action that will take longer than the melee combat round then your character is committed to that regardless of how long it will take (even multiple rounds).

Again, that's the actual rule. And if you don't declare your decision immediately, but are thinking about it, the time you spent thinking will also count against you (in segments, of course).


It's your call. If you really believe that you're playing with all the rules, we can keep going through them- I love discussing 1e Rules!!!!! And there's a lot more than just combat. You rolled your ages randomly and applied the ability modifiers. This isn't optional (it's a must use). Height and weight were also randomly determined by table for each PC, with the optional use of the variation table. You already rolled for your maximum age (important for, inter alia, ghosts). You are "correctly" using Thief abilities per the DMG (the DM rolls for all thief abilities). And so on.

Yes, all of that was done. Here's the interesting bit. Our DM is in her late 20s. Wasn't even around back then. But she's quite a stickler for detail and puts a ton of DM work in. So all that stuff you're mentioning is done. Let me put it this way. On session 1, playing KotBL, we arrived to see her with a full map of the keep where 1 inch = 5 ft. Every building had minis for each NPC within. They were all named with background info. Including any henchmen or hirelings.

 

[Lanefan]

yes. We do. Which is why I keep saying combat takes forever. Constantly checking the rules. I do not advocate it.

And I'm saying I'm not seeing these direct contradictions. I've seen a lot of folks say they exist, but can't really point them out in detail of why or what it contradicts with. Like the initiative thing above. There are no contradictions there as I explained in my reply. It's not user-friendly, it's confusing, but it's not directly contradictory. There are several "if this, then use this rule", but that's not the same as being contradictory. Just a different if/then statement.

Are you using the RAW as written in 1979 or are you including UA and-or Dragon-article amendments and additions thereafter?

I ask because one factor in the early 1980s that we don't see today is that Dragon came out every month and sometimes had new rules or Gygax's interpretations in it that were intended to be "core" (not that we used that term for it then) and other times had new rules etc. that were intended to be optional. In other words, the game was a living and evolving document rather than a locked-in set of rules.

Then UA came out and made some of that optional stuff core and overwrote or discarded some of the previously-core bits from Dragon.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Yes, all of that was done. Here's the interesting bit. Our DM is in her late 20s. Wasn't even around back then. But she's quite a stickler for detail and puts a ton of DM work in. So all that stuff you're mentioning is done. Let me put it this way. On session 1, playing KotBL, we arrived to see her with a full map of the keep where 1 inch = 5 ft. Every building had minis for each NPC within. They were all named with background info. Including any henchmen or hirelings.

I keep hearing you say, "That's all done," and talk about miniatures, but did you actually read what I posted?

Look, I'm not at your table. If you want to tell me that you do not do anything other than immediately declare your combat action, with no cross-talk or hesitation, each and every time, and your DM is timing you for this, I can't say that it isn't happening. If your DM is writing it down and determining the number of segments each declared action takes and running your character through it regardless of the amount of time it takes, great. And, of course, you have to remember that it's like Cobra Kai- no hesitation. Because if you hesitate, you might end up not going at all (or not actually winning the initiative).

As for knowing all the rules- I've played 1e and I know the PHB and the DMG like the back of my hand, and I still get into edge cases and rules issues.

If it makes you feel better, your DM is the one DM that has successfully run 1e with every rule turned on, and despite the fact that you don't actually know everything going on behind the screen, I'll take your word for it. Good?