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

[Celebrim]

I don't see any logical reason to bring in weapon speed as a factor.

I think that's kind of my point in a nutshell. It doesn't make sense given the long duration a spell takes to complete to take into account the fraction of a second longer it takes to strike with a two-handed sword compared to a dagger, especially given that this is a "close to melee" sort of situation where that advantage in striking time is mitigated by the fraction of a second of an additional step or lunge you have to take to get in range. These are things that are very fast - so fast that they are irrelevant to the granularity we are talking about of 18 seconds.

But beyond that, if you look at the distance to be traversed, we're talking about whether the bugbear that is potentially already running in as part of continuous action (carried over from the prior round) can in 18 seconds close a gap of say 12 feet or 12 yards or some really short distance. There is this huge disconnect between the skirmish level fights that D&D models and these time scales that D&D is using. And for my part I just always assumed that it was a carryover from this being abstract rules for mass combat, where Gygax surely knew that fights could go on for hours - something that you were never going to successfully simulate with six second rounds.

 

[Voadam]

Damn fine question, and I've probably oversimplified. I'm re-reading to refresh myself now.

The closest I'm seeing in the text to that plain statement is on DMG p65, under Spell Casting During Melee, item 2, "Attacks directed at spell casters will come on that segment of the round shown on their opponent's or 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."

OK, so my guy with a two handed sword who loses initiative attacks the spellcaster on their initiative which is in the first 1-6 segments of the round, implied segment 2 for the winning side rolling a 5. All his other two-handed sword buddies trading blows in melee go at segments 3-6 depending on their losing initiative roll.

But wait . . .

And on p66-67 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) far 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 far the reacting side to strike the spell caster prior to completion of the fireball. Note that even though a spell takes but 1 segment 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 no my two-handed sword wielder only starts counting down till their action on segment 2, the fireball goes off at 5 and his attack comes later, probably after his buddy with a two-handed sword engaged with an opponent striking blows gets off their attack at segments 3-6.

If it was a 1 segment magic missile going off at 3 I am not sure, does the MU attacker go at 3 or 4, possibly before his two-hander buddy trading blows to the side or 10 segments after segment 2 (the next melee round)?

If it was a sixth level 6 segment casting time disintegrate, the spell and two-handed sword attack on the MU would come after the melee brawl two-handed attacks are resolved.

 

[fuindordm]

Yeah it's a big ol' mess and not really worth the effort to reconcile textually.

In any case no melee attacker on the losing side should act earlier than their side's starting segment, regardless of weapon.

 

[Lanefan]

@Mannahnin : Good informative post, but I do just want to note how incoherent it is in the fiction that the guy casting Fireball has to stand their dancing slowly and chanting for 18 seconds, and a guy with a two-handed sword is simply too slow to strike him before he finishes.

The answer here is to simply rule that any spell cast while in melee will automatically be interrupted, even if the attacker's actual initiative falls outside the spell's casting time.

There is a huge disconnect between the apparently frantic action implied by the initiative rules, and the slow-motion combats implied by the round/turn lengths that were adopted in presumably from what made sense for mass combat. This bothered me immensely back in the day, and I readily welcomed the six second round of 3e even as I mourned the loss of segments and casting times. I did repeatedly consider bringing back casting time and segments to 3e in order to provide a check on casters (who were OP in the 3e RAW because all the checks on them had been removed and they'd been buffed) but avoided it because 3e could already be complex, whereas things like "who hits first" and "weapon vs. AC modifiers" were really the only complexities/granularities you had going in 1e combat to provoke tactical choices and stop combat from being just hit point burn downs.

Agreed on pretty much all of this, though we found weapon-vs-AC modifiers to be far more work than they were worth and ditched them.

We went to 30-second rounds many years ago. 6-second rounds are too short, 1-minute rounds are too long. We quite likely would have gone to 20-second rounds, but 20 doesn't divide evenly by 6 (segments) and 18-second rounds wouldn't line up evenly with minutes; 30 is the best compromise when it comes to ease of arithmetic.

For the 3e game I was in, the DM did use casting times and it worked just fine - you'd start casting on your initiative and finish x-number of initiative pips later, with 'x' set by the specific spell you were casting. During that time you could be interrupted.

When he went to 3.5 he did away with casting times, and caster power (which was already more than good enough) went through the roof.

 

[Jahydin]

So, even less bonus damage than the monk?

I suppose since the monk is gated behind high stats and alignment restrictions I'm okay with them being better. The low HP helps balance things out as well.

I think we all agree that the fighter group deserves something, and that gatekeeping a class ability behind an 18 strength was a bad idea!

Oh yeah. It's clear Gary's focus was balancing the game world and not the party. I think I can understand it though since campaigns were played with lots of people with a ton of characters being rolled up. I can remember my friend's father's PC folder with dozens upon dozens of characters he rolled up played over the years, ready to go at any time for another adventure!

I think if you go into AD&D with the expectation that your particular PC is not special (other than above average stats) and will have to make a name for themselves with what they rolled up, you'll have a more satisfying experience.

 

[Celebrim]

The answer here is to simply rule that any spell cast while in melee will automatically be interrupted, even if the attacker's actual initiative falls outside the spell's casting time.

That's just the normal way things work. This is referring to a situation where the caster declares intent to cast spells while not in melee, and the monster (say a bugbear) within say 9" of the M-U but not yet in base-to-base contact declares intent to close with and strike the M-U.

We went to 30-second rounds many years ago. 6-second rounds are too short, 1-minute rounds are too long.

I think 6 seconds work really well. One second like GURPS uses maybe also works but it is really fast and combat can get really crunchy when you lose all abstraction. But if you look at Sumo, Fencing, or HEMA six seconds is a lot of combat. My preference is for a typical combat to last 3-5 rounds, and well 30 seconds of combat is a lot of action.

If I was revising everything in 1e AD&D I might to a 10 second round of 10 segments using d10 initiative similar to 2e but perhaps with individual initiative like 3e because "whole side goes first" proved problematic for me back in the day. Again, my complaint on 1e AD&D combat is often the initiative roll feels nearer to the end of combat than the beginning, and if the party wins often the fight is very much one sided.

For the 3e game I was in, the DM did use casting times and it worked just fine - you'd start casting on your initiative and finish x-number of initiative pips later, with 'x' set by the specific spell you were casting. During that time you could be interrupted.

Yeah, that was my thought on adding casting times into 3e as well. I just never took the leap of having casting beginning on one segment but ending on another. Casters were already taken down several pegs by my house rules (no combat casting to avoid AoO for example) and it never felt really necessary.

 

[Celebrim]

I suppose since the monk is gated behind high stats and alignment restrictions I'm okay with them being better. The low HP helps balance things out as well.

If I revise the monk, my general approach of not gating things behind stats will apply. I think the only class that is likely to retain the pretty high bar to qualify for is Bard and technically Paladin but only because I'm likely to keep a pretty high Charisma as a requirement.

And the reason for that is that if you don't fix ability scores (and this thread is about how I can't) I think you have to end the gatekeeping and give some interesting options if you roll up mediocre scores. So your options are then expand to (roughly speaking) "Base classes that rock if you have two or more 17+'s" or else "Subclasses, that don't require high ability scores to do interesting things."

 

[Mannahnin]

The answer here is to simply rule that any spell cast while in melee will automatically be interrupted, even if the attacker's actual initiative falls outside the spell's casting time.

Well, the point with 1E's initiative system for casting in combat is to make it a risky gamble, and normally one that's not worth it unless you're using a magical device, which is quicker than a powerful spell. And to enable tactical choices re: using quicker spells over slower ones. It's not just to make it impossible.

That's just the normal way things work. This is referring to a situation where the caster declares intent to cast spells while not in melee, and the monster (say a bugbear) within say 9" of the M-U but not yet in base-to-base contact declares intent to close with and strike the M-U.

Not just that situation; look at the quote from p66-67 again.

The spell is not automatically foiled just because there's a melee attacker there. It's foiled if that attacker goes before them and hits them (with them getting no Dex bonus to defense).

But with longer casting time spells (most of the higher level ones for M-Us and most spells for Clerics) and short to medium weapons, the attacker will almost always get that opportunity to attack before the M-U gets the spell off, even if the attacker lost initiative. This makes slower spells ones you want to make sure you're protected before you try to cast in a fight, and incentivizes you to rely on wands and quick ones (magic missiles, power words, etc.) with the shortest casting times if you do need to cast when you're in danger of being attacked.

For the 3e game I was in, the DM did use casting times and it worked just fine - you'd start casting on your initiative and finish x-number of initiative pips later, with 'x' set by the specific spell you were casting. During that time you could be interrupted.

When he went to 3.5 he did away with casting times, and caster power (which was already more than good enough) went through the roof.

I think 6 seconds work really well. One second like GURPS uses maybe also works but it is really fast and combat can get really crunchy when you lose all abstraction. But if you look at Sumo, Fencing, or HEMA six seconds is a lot of combat. My preference is for a typical combat to last 3-5 rounds, and well 30 seconds of combat is a lot of action.

If I was revising everything in 1e AD&D I might to a 10 second round of 10 segments using d10 initiative similar to 2e but perhaps with individual initiative like 3e because "whole side goes first" proved problematic for me back in the day. Again, my complaint on 1e AD&D combat is often the initiative roll feels nearer to the end of combat than the beginning, and if the party wins often the fight is very much one sided.

Yeah, that was my thought on adding casting times into 3e as well. I just never took the leap of having casting beginning on one segment but ending on another. Casters were already taken down several pegs by my house rules (no combat casting to avoid AoO for example) and it never felt really necessary.

As I recall 3.0 also had Full Round casting time spells, which started on the caster's initiative count and then finished casting on his next initiative, in the following round.

As for round length, I tend to like 10 seconds (a la B/X) or 6 (a la 3.0 and later). 10 feels a little more reasonable for some of the more active rounds, the option to speak a bit, etc.

 

[Voadam]

That's just the normal way things work. This is referring to a situation where the caster declares intent to cast spells while not in melee, and the monster (say a bugbear) within say 9" of the M-U but not yet in base-to-base contact declares intent to close with and strike the M-U.

My reading of B/X Basic (page B15 "Similarly, because the words and gestures must be repeated exactly, spells cannot be cast while performing any other action (such as walking or fighting)." was that you could not cast in melee, but in 1e I read the section in the 1e DMG spell casting in melee (page 65) as being that you could, but you have to be relatively motionless while casting and not use any dex bonus to AC and anything that interrupted your casting (successful attack, failed save, grapple) would disrupt the spell.

In the PH the relevant discussion seems to be on pages 100 and 104.

 

[fuindordm]

Do not attempt to reconcile the text! That way lies madness!
I warned them...