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

[Celebrim]

Sometimes folks unfortunately don't read or understand the question before they answer it.

But I suspect that they're answering sincerely, and I'm going to guess that they simply don't remember what kludges their DMs came up with for all those situations with Rangers and Unearthed Arcana races and various monsters. And that they're answering the more general question of how they dealt with the 1E initiative or surprise systems being difficult or impossible to understand or use as written. Just use the simpler B/X systems.

One thing that you can absolutely be sure of is that people who play or played 1e AD&D don't know the rules.

 

[Lanefan]

PHB, page 10-11. They are in full-phrase format (rather than a column with just numbers) mixed in with the 'Minimum wisdom for a ranger character' and similar.

The intelligence and wisdom tables note the maximum.

D'oh!

I was looking for a "maximum spell level allowable" column of numbers somewhere.

 

[Lanefan]

Sometimes folks unfortunately don't read or understand the question before they answer it.

But I suspect that they're answering sincerely, and I'm going to guess that they simply don't remember what kludges their DMs came up with for all those situations with Rangers and Unearthed Arcana races and various monsters. And that they're answering the more general question of how they dealt with the 1E initiative or surprise systems being difficult or impossible to understand or use as written. Just use the simpler B/X systems.

Monks' bespoke percentile surprise system is the one that always throws me.

 

[fuindordm]

First of all, thanks Celebrim for starting a few AD&D topics recently. AD&D is dear to my heart and I always enjoy talking about it.

Second of all, I don't believe any interpretation of any ambiguous rule in AD&D (such as surprise or initiative) is objectively correct. The system grew organically and it is frankly astonishing that it achieved enough internal coherence to stand the test of time. I will happily share my perspective but I will not engage in literalism, analysis of historical documents, or that sort of thing.

With that said, here are my thoughts on these three proud nails of AD&D.

Initiative : cosmetic fix
the DMG spends a lot of text on special cases. What happens when a player charges? What happens when we want to model a one-on-one duel? And how should we resolve "instant" actions (like a melee attack) occuring in the same round as prolonged actions (like spellcasting or moving)? When you look past these rulings the rule for initiative is pretty simple: each side rolls d6; resolve missiles and spells before melee. You need to resolve in this order because every melee is a chaotic scrum and missiles target a random participant; this gives your archers a chance to attack enemies before they close, for example.

At my table, 90% of the time we just use the basic side-based initiative and it is enough. I make one small change : the lower roll goes first, not the highest, and the number on the d6 is each side's starting segment. This makes it considerably easier to resolve prolonged actions, and in fact it leads to almost the same outcome as the more involved calculation in the DMG which assumes the higher number goes first.

Surprise : cosmetic fix
The nature of surprise is a genre-defining choice. If being surprised can have deadly consequences, players have a strong incentive to engage in stealth and exploration before combat. Setting up a successful ambush means you might be able to win a combat with only minor injuries, if any. Getting ambushed means you are starting at a major disadvantage, and if you survive the first attack then running could be the best option! On the other hand, if being surprised is no more painful than losing initiative, then much of the incentive for stealth and exploration disappears.

In AD&D surprise is an interesting little subsystem. It encourages high-Dex characters to travel light (so they can reduce or remove their own penalty segments), and magic-users to prepare one-segment spells. It encourages scouting--if you send the halfling with 17 Dex, or a ranger, 90' ahead of the party and they run into a monster, chances are they can use their surprise advantage to sprint back to the party.

Notably, almost no mention is made of perception or stealth. Why? This was simply an area that Gygax decided to simplify for the benefit of the game. With mixed parties and multiple creatures on both sides of the equation, then most of the time individual aptitudes in stealth and perception simply cancel out. There are important exceptions, of course, one of them being that the ranger's awareness benefits the whole party, and another being the ability of thieves to hide perfectly. And of course, there is DM fiat, but the spirit of the rules is that even a "perfect" ambush gives a higher surprise range but doesn't avoid the roll and the possibility of detection.

When 3.x came along, I was excited at first to have solid rules for perception and stealth. But these rules quickly became hotly contested ground. Why is perception sometimes active and sometimes passive? How many people need to succeed at a stealth roll for the party as a whole to pass unnoticed? Does a party with two ninjas and two paladins really suffice? How does concealment factor in? If everyone in the party gets to roll to detect an ambush, how likely is it that the ambush really happens? And so on. In fact, this detailed subsystem fell apart in play (for me) because the outcome depended on two many rolls and because the large ranges of skill ranks and d20s swamped the narrow range of probabilities that would feel reasonable in play.

Now I'm not saying that AD&D suprise is perfect, but it has the advantages of being simple(*) to resolve and making the players explore unknown environments with great caution. And this is part of the mood I want to capture when playing AD&D.

* Yes, the probabilties are a mess for some monsters and rare cases, but you can avoid the worst of it by making all bonuses to stealth / awareness integers on a d6. Frogs underwater surprise on 4 in 6 but you have a ranger in the party? The party is surprised on 3 in 6. If the ranger is alone then the frogs are also surprised on 3 in 6 instead of 2 in 6.

Ability scores : major fix

I agree with many of Celebrim's sentiments and in my own homebrew I have several houserules on ability scores. The exceptional strength lottery is something I can't abide, so I just give fighters a different strength table from PCs in other groups. You can get +3 to hit and +6 damage only with a strength of 19, and only if you're in the fighter group. I also have an "exceptional feat" table similar to Bend Bars/Lift Gates, but that can be used for any ability score. To reach the high probabilties for an exceptional feat (20%-40%, like BB/LG) you have to have a high ability score and also belong to a class that specializes in the ability score. For example, a thief with 17 Dex might have a 35% chance of using contortionism to wriggle out of a jail cell, while a magic-user will only have a 10% chance.

More generally, I decided that one of the design principles of AD&D is that if you belong to the right class, you get more out of a high ability score associated with the class. So fighters already get more out of Str and Con, and clerics get more out of Wis. I added some extra advantages for Intelligence and Dexterity likewise.

Regarding the bell curve, however, I don't think it's an issue as long as everyone is playing at the same level. It doesn't suck to play a PC with 15 15 14 12 10 8 intrinsically, it sucks when you're playing next to Lucky Luke with 18 18 15 12 11 10. So my simple fix is just to make the ability score arrays common property. Everyone rolls, but anyone can use anyone else's array.

 

[Celebrim]

First of all, thanks Celebrim for starting a few AD&D topics recently. AD&D is dear to my heart and I always enjoy talking about it.

Sure. For some reason I've become a bit obsessed with analyzing a game that I gave up on like 30 years ago, and which after trying to play several times since then decided never to play again. I don't know why that is what I'm hyper fixated on, but here we are.

Initiative : cosmetic fix the DMG spends a lot of text on special cases.

Here is the thing; not nearly enough. With Initiative and Surprise I had assumed my audience had already seen this analyzed to death and didn't need a refresher. Yes, 90% of the time initiative is simple and you can use basic party initiative and carry over from round to round just for simplicity. But that is part ignoring the rules and part not dealing with the complex situations that can arise with multiple attacks per round and scimitars of quickness and so forth. I'm not asking about processes of play that aren't documented by the rules. If you aren't using the rules, what the rules say is irrelevant, and indeed while the rules may not be harming you they certainly aren't helping you. It's my goal to write rules that help and can be used.

Also I think you are maybe using B/X initiative and not realizing it.

So let's look at the actual rules. Please read this and get back to me about "cosmetic fixes".


Now, there is some of that I really like, including the part you called out as disliking. Absolutely in a charge situation, the person with the longer weapon should go first regardless of the initiative order. That's a great rule, and one I would keep. But the overall system is overly complex and involves way too much exception based design. That document had to be compiled from all over.

Ability scores : major fix

More generally, I decided that one of the design principles of AD&D is that if you belong to the right class, you get more out of a high ability score associated with the class. So fighters already get more out of Str and Con, and clerics get more out of Wis. I added some extra advantages for Intelligence and Dexterity likewise.

This is somewhat the opposite of where I would go. Getting more out of high ability scores makes the problem worse and makes the need to only play a character who has the right high ability scores greater. So for example in my fix to the Barbarian, one of the things I pointedly did was get rid of the double bonus to DEX on the barbarian, not only because it was unnecessary front loading, but because it reduced the Barbarians mutual (high) attribute dependency where you really only wanted to play one if you had high CON, DEX, and STR because Barbarian RAW was totally the "get more of everything if your stats are unreasonably high" class and I was deliberately getting away from that. And indeed, I also lowered the entry requirements to the class because really I wanted a class that was interesting to get into if all you had going for you was high CON - something we otherwise didn't really have.

So my simple fix is just to make the ability score arrays common property. Everyone rolls, but anyone can use anyone else's array.

In which case you'd be better off just agreeing on the array you wanted to use ahead of time. But I want to note, "everyone using a common array" is the height of not playing in a first edition style and is rather the opposite of claiming play what you get is a good thing. Your fix is a reversal of basically everything about character generation as it existed before 1985 or so.

 

[Celebrim]

Here is a short reference document on AD&D initiative I found in a good thread about it on EnWorld.

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

• 
• 

 

[fuindordm]

Sure. For some reason I've become a bit obsessed with analyzing a game that I gave up on like 30 years ago, and which after trying to play several times since then decided never to play again. I don't know why that is what I'm hyper fixated on, but here we are.

In my case, it is defniitely fueled by nostalgia. Redesigning AD&D is a fun mental exercise : what changes could I could make that really improve the game while preserving its magic? Of course this judgment is purely subjective, but my personal AD&D is a game that I want to play (or DM).

Also I think you are maybe using B/X initiative and not realizing it.

So let's look at the actual rules. Please read this and get back to me about "cosmetic fixes".

Now, there is some of that I really like, including the part you called out as disliking. Absolutely in a charge situation, the person with the longer weapon should go first regardless of the initiative order. That's a great rule, and one I would keep. But the overall system is overly complex and involves way too much exception based design. That document had to be compiled from all over.

It's possible I'm defaulting to B/X somehow, but I rarely played it even as a teen. I did play Holmes.
I use most of the resolution methods in the consolidated document you shared, but I haven't felt the need to create detailed rulings for rare magic items, psionics, how to handle spectators, etc.
For multiple attacks during surprise segments, I have decided that simpler is better: one melee attack or missile attack per segment is plenty. Last year I also read obsessively all the perspectives offered on the Dragonsfoot forum, both for and against the triple rate of fire statement in the DMG.
I like the rule that longer weapons strike first when closing to melee range, but there are always exceptions and I think the real intent is for the DM to make a ruling based on their understanding of the situation. For example, if a spear-carrier is part of a shield wall facing the wrong way, or if the person closing to melee is a thief sneaking up for a backstab, then I would not necessarily give the spear the first strike. That's one example of why I consider some of the initiative chapter rulings and not rules.
The only initiative rule I actively dislike is the higher d6 roll going first and the pointless math shuffle it engenders to determine the starting segment of a prolonged action.

This is somewhat the opposite of where I would go. Getting more out of high ability scores makes the problem worse and makes the need to only play a character who has the right high ability scores greater.

In which case you'd be better off just agreeing on the array you wanted to use ahead of time. But I want to note, "everyone using a common array" is the height of not playing in a first edition style and is rather the opposite of claiming play what you get is a good thing. Your fix is a reversal of basically everything about character generation as it existed before 1985 or so.

That's fair, and the way you decide to handle ability scores has an impact on the style of game you want to promote. This is the single part of AD&D that I struggled with the most in my personal design.

A score of 15+ is not that rare in the population: about 10% on 3d6. About half of NPCs generated on 3d6 will have at least one score of 15 or better. About half of PCs generated on "4d6 drop 1" will have two scores of at least 15. From that mathematical perspective I decided that it was not unreasonable for mechanical bonuses to start appearing when a character is at the 90th percentile. (But again, where you want the bonuses to start appearing is a subjective choice--I'm just explaining the context that made me personally comfortable retaining the 15+ principle, mostly)

Does this make a game where the PCs tend to have high scores, and feel like it is necessary to have high scores? Absolutely. Does this make them more likely to survive and thrive? Somewhat. But having high scores does not make you invulnerable. Not even an 18 Con will help you if you find yourself stuck in the front line against a troop of orcs who are rolling well. Bad tactics and choices cause character death more quickly than any other factor!

Finally, you bring up the other aspect of "AD&D style" that I cannot abide--the dice lottery for PC creation. I want my players to feel like they can grow attached to their characters, and having unlucky rolls in character creation or leveling up can absolutely suck the joy out of the game. Not just ability scores, but hit points too! BUT I also want the ability score arrays to feel organic, not planned. So everyone at the table rolls their array on 4d6 drop one, and maybe Lucy has 16 15 15 11 10 8 while Ricky has 17 14 12 12 8 6. Some players who roll worse than either decide to use Lucy's array, others use Ricky's, and that's just fine with me. No one feels shortchanged. And for HP I give the maximum for the first hit die and half maximum for all subsequent hit dice.

I don't think this takes away any of the charm of a long-form campaign. Now personally, I would play in a meatgrinder AD&D campaign where PC death is expected early and often, and part of the fun is running multiple characters and seeing who survives. In this case no problem with fully random ability scores and hit points. But that is personal taste and I don't think most of my players would find that sort of game fun.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I'm not familiar enough with BECMI to address how it worked, though I do think the BECMI dividing the round into stages is a very elegant solution. What I think is likely however that your solution isn't really a solution to the problem AD&D creates in the general case. At least the answer provided by Leigh Krehmeyer is an attempt to provide a definitive answer in all cases of play that could come up in the game. The answer is arbitrary and subjective and you could justify different ones, but at least it is comprehensive, which I don't imagine "just use BECMI" actually is.

My approach to AD&D was very much informed by my young age. By my recollection, I started running Basic D&D when I was nine, and I moved onto AD&D when I was 11. When I re-read the core AD&D books as an adult, I realized that in a lot of ways I was back then I was still running Basic D&D, only with AD&D mechanics bolted onto it. A lot of the Gygaxian intricacies, I was just too young to encompass.

 

[David Howery]

the 1E surprise rules always annoyed me, particularly when it involved "so, this guy can sneak up on a wild panther and has a better chance of surprising it than vice verse?" And it got even crazier with all the new classes/demi-humans available in UA. I think in the last days of 1E, I modified it all to a D8 instead of a D6. It was tempting to tinker with it a lot, but after a while, you gotta wonder just how much more complication you wanted to add...