AD&D 1E Three Things that can't be Fixed in 1e AD&D

[Mannahnin]

Got it.

So if the PCs roll a 6 and the bad guys roll a 3, yet the PCs don't start acting until 3, on what init. count do the bad guys get to act? Meanwhile, what happens in the fiction during those 6-5-4 segments (which in 1e represent 30 seconds of time in total)?

What seems to make more sense, at least to me, is that if the PCs roll a 6 they start acting on a 6 while if the bad guys roll 3 they start acting on a 3 (and thus can maybe interrupt or interpose against any PC actions that haven't finished by then). Your roll shows when your actions start, but still counting down as before.

"Before" what?

In AD&D 1E and 2E you count UP.

When exactly the initiative losers act in AD&D 1E initiative is a somewhat complex topic and depends on what they're doing, because 1E is designed to create special situations where long spells can be interrupted by charging melee attackers, quicker spells, devices, or missiles even if the caster of the long spell won initiative. It's pretty darn complex, but Celebrim linked earlier in this thread a post explaining AD&D 1E initiative step-by-step:

Post in thread 'AD&D/OSRIC: How did initiative work?'

Jun 3, 2025

To prove a point, here is Addict without examples of play and all the painstaking reference cut out. 4 Pages.

# ADDICT - LITE

Compiled by David M. Prata (“DMPrata”), shortened by aiouh
Version 2.2 (19 March 2006)
ENCOUNTERS, COMBAT, AND INITIATIVE

I. Determine if either or both parties are surprised.

A. Normally, a d6 is rolled for each party. A roll of 1 or 2 indicates surprise.

1. Some individuals, notably rangers, are surprised less often — 1 in 6 (162/3%) less often, in the case of rangers. This benefit accrues to the entire party.
2. Some individuals, notably rangers, surprise...

• aiouh

• 
• 

 

[Lanefan]

"Before" what?

In AD&D 1E and 2E you count UP.

Where does it say that? High roll wins, which implies you're counting down.

When exactly the initiative losers act in AD&D 1E initiative is a somewhat complex topic and depends on what they're doing, because 1E is designed to create special situations where long spells can be interrupted by charging melee attackers, quicker spells, devices, or missiles even if the caster of the long spell won initiative. It's pretty darn complex, but Celebrim linked earlier in this thread a post explaining AD&D 1E initiative step-by-step:

It's also whacked because for some inexplicable reason spellcasting works on a 10-segment round where everything else works on a 6-segment round.

 

[TwoSix]

Well, you might as well argue that grass is green because doghouses aren't made of pancakes. Both statements are true, but they don't have a logical connection. Let's say we had a "Speed" attribute and it modelled the 100 meter dash. If you measured 10,000 people's 100 meter dash time and then plotted it on a curve grouping according to same distribution as a 3d6 roll, you'd not find the "law" you think you are describing to hold true. The gap between the 12 and 13 group would be bigger than between the 17 and 18 group. The bonuses as translated to how much better you were than the group next to you would start out very large and gradually shrink over the course of the graph. The size of the groups would probably fit well in your normal distribution (in how rare a particular time was) but the "bonuses" would not. The middle 68% would cover a huge range of like between 16 and 45 seconds, while the top 5% would narrow down to a difference in just a few seconds or even factions of a second. (I'm just pulling numbers out of the air, but the general idea is true). Thus "bonuses" we'd need to describe this variation wouldn't follow your RPG created biases.

I agree with all this, but I can also think of attributes where that's not true. If you put, say, height (using adult male height for the US as the data set) , on a similar bell curve, the gap between a 9 and 12 would only be maybe 2 inches, whereas an 18 could represent height anywhere from 6'4" up to 7'6"+.

Powerlifting also sees similar distributions; I'm sure 99%+ of the population can't bench press 300 lb. But within that small group (the 18s, the top ~0.5%), you'll have groupings that can hit 300s, 400s, 500s, or even more.

It's generally one of the many indications that using stats as a way to model frequencies of traits within a population is fraught at best, but retaining some aspects of it is probably necessary to maintain the 1e "flavor".

 

[Celebrim]

I agree with all this, but I can also think of attributes where that's not true. If you put, say, height (using adult male height for the US as the data set) , on a similar bell curve, the gap between a 9 and 12 would only be maybe 2 inches, whereas an 18 could represent height anywhere from 6'4" up to 7'6"+.

I literally put height in the essay as an example of where it would be true.

Powerlifting also sees similar distributions; I'm sure 99%+ of the population can't bench press 300 lb. But within that small group (the 18s, the top ~0.5%), you'll have groupings that can hit 300s, 400s, 500s, or even more.

I'd have to research. If the thing is true it would have to be true in a subset of the curve as well. So if power lifting fits, I'd expect at top power lifting competitions to see the spread between 1st and 3rd place to be like 100 lbs. But if the top 5 or 10 guys are all grouped together within 5 or 10 pounds, then the whole notion of every tier of improvement gives you a bigger bonus starts to break down.

 

[Voadam]

The by the book 1E initiative rules say that the side rolling higher acts first, starting on the segment indicated by the die result of the losing side. So if the PCs roll a 6 and the bad guys roll a 3, the PCs win and start acting on segment 3. If the PCs roll a 6 and the bad guys roll a 5, the PCs go first and start acting on 5.

Do you know where it says this in the 1e PH or DMG? I don't remember that being specified.

 

[cbwjm]

1e initiative sounds crazy confusing. I far prefer the ease of rolling a d6 and the highest side goes first. I remember using weapon speeds and casting time in 2e but not sure I can recall how it works now, I don't recall it being as difficult to figure out as 1e though.

 

[Jahydin]

Well, you might as well argue that grass is green because doghouses aren't made of pancakes. Both statements are true, but they don't have a logical connection. Let's say we had a "Speed" attribute and it modelled the 100 meter dash. If you measured 10,000 people's 100 meter dash time and then plotted it on a curve grouping according to same distribution as a 3d6 roll, you'd not find the "law" you think you are describing to hold true. The gap between the 12 and 13 group would be bigger than between the 17 and 18 group. The bonuses as translated to how much better you were than the group next to you would start out very large and gradually shrink over the course of the graph. The size of the groups would probably fit well in your normal distribution (in how rare a particular time was) but the "bonuses" would not. The middle 68% would cover a huge range of like between 16 and 45 seconds, while the top 5% would narrow down to a difference in just a few seconds or even factions of a second. (I'm just pulling numbers out of the air, but the general idea is true). Thus "bonuses" we'd need to describe this variation wouldn't follow your RPG created biases.

You seem to forget that the numbers are intended to describe something.

And there's the disconnect.

Depending on what we're talking about, the values towards the end of curve might very well be close, especially when approaching what is even physically possible for the human body to preform. No one is going to be approaching the speed of light towards the end of that 100 meter dash curve after all.

Please consider just how much more natural talent and training it takes to eke out those few fractions of second though. It is tremendous. That is what the bonus to the stat is modeling.

Once you understand that, I think everything you found illogical in your last post will make more sense.

UPDATE: And there is an actual RPGism that doesn't follow this "law" you think you've discovered because you've over generalized how it might work for "height" - the ability score check. In an ability score check the bonus you have to the task is linearly increasing even though the grouping you are in follows the gaussian curve. 3's are a lot rarer than 4's but the delta of the bonus is the same there and everywhere else. "Threes" complete the task 20% of the time and "fours" complete it 25% of the time because they have a +1 bonus compared to a "3". In fact the gap here if you want to think of it that is decreasing as we go from left to right on the chart. Fours are 25% better at the task than threes, but 18s are only like 5.8% better at the task than 17s. And for a lot things this is perfectly cromulent rough modeling of how it really works. For something though, the difference in success rate might actually be decreasing faster than that. 18's succeed only 1% more often than 17's, who succeed only 2% more than 16's, and so forth. There isn't a law on task resolution that says the more of a statistical outlier you are, the bigger the gap in success between you and the nearest statistical group is.

You are correct. Starting with 3e, D&D stat bonuses became a linear distribution despite still being rolled the same way (mostly).