the_grey_elf's blog listings. Feed Zend_Feed_Writer 1.10.8 (http://framework.zend.com) http://community.wizards.com/the_grey_elf An Exegesis on Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Part 21 FURTHER ACTIONS
Congratulations! We're up to page 66 in the DMG...of 240. I hope I'm providing a comprehensive enough reading for everyone. Of course, some later sections such as Magic Items (pp 125-168) won't explore every single item; only a few iconics, and I'm not going to run down every critter in the monster tables from pp. 196-215, so we're further on that it seems....

Close to Striking Range: This just clarifies that if you move up to your base speed to engage an opponent, combat moves to the next round. A strange contradiction here; this section clarifies that if the opponent is over 1" (10 ft/yards) away, "Play goes to the next round after this, as melee is not possible, although other activity can, of course, take place such as that detailed above." But I seem to recall earlier (or perhaps later; I can't remember where, exactly) it clarified that one can move up to half his base movement and still attack.

Charge
Charging has several factors involved in first edition, rather than simply doubling base speed and granting a bonus to hit and penalty to AC (though in practice, once factors are accounted for, the end result is similar; it's just broken down differently and the rationale explained).

Now, here is the first place where the difference in scale outdoors vs. indoors actually makes a practical difference. Outdoors, with the 1"=10 yard scale, bipedal creatures increase speed by 1/3 for charging; quadrupeds increase it by half-again. The text references Swords & Spells, which is difficult to come by these days. I have a copy (and a PDF), but really, it's not necessary to have this reference here. Swords & Spells is simply a detailed fantasy miniatures mass battle system, and this reference is merely a reference to a table on page 3 of that document, which shows the 1/3 "charge bonus" to movement.

Movement indoors, on the other hand, sees base speed doubled, just like in later editions of the game.

Of course, an opponent must be with 1" at the end of a charge move for melee to take place.

Armor Class of Charging Creatures: in first edition, charging creatures lose their Dexterity Bonus to AC, which results also in AC being penalized by one. This is an important factor to remember, and should very likely be repeated elsewhere, but isn't. I'll repeat: Any character who loses their Dexterity bonus to AC also sees AC penalized by one (thus, AC 3 becomes AC 4). For a character with an 18 Dexterity, this is pretty brutal. What exactly the rationale is for this rule, I cannot say, unless AC granted by armor also counts in the armor's mobility allowance, though that seems off, as every kind of armor, no matter how light or heavy, effectively then grants 1 point of AC for dodging...hrm. Still, this seems to be upheld in the fact that "There is no penalty to AC 10 creatures for charging, however." (p. 66)

Melee At [sic] End of Charge: "Initiative is NOT checked at the end of the charge" (p. 66)... a strange statement, as one would assume that if you begin the charge, it occurs on your initiative turn. However, it goes on to clarify that the opponent with the longer weapon strikes first (a shadowy precursor of 3.x's Threatened Space and Reach). IF the charging creature survives a "first strike" by an opponent with a longer reach weapon, he gains +2 to hit.

Set Weapons Against [sic] Possible Opponent Charge: If an opponent with a longer weapon (such as a spear or pole arm) sets his weapon against a hard object such as a wall, or even angled into the ground, and scores a hit against a charging opponent, the set weapon deals double damage. I might prefer something a tiny bit more robust here, perhaps a contested roll to see if the weapons can be set in such a way that the charging opponent cannot avoid by breaking off the charge...but I suppose it works as-is. It's simple and elegant, and really, if a character decides to charge someone with spears or pole arms...I suppose that's just a risk you knowingly take.

Strike Blows
The first few sub-sections of this part deal with weapon speed, a much debated element of first edition AD&D. Most of us who use weapon speed, I daresay, have adopted some adaptation of the second edition formula, where weapon speed simply directly influences initiative. That's certainly the system I use. But I'll try and simplify and make sense of the actual first edition system here, which is actually not all that complex and would work just fine by the book.

Indeed, for those who often complain that first edition combat isn't robust enough, and just boils down to "hit, damage, hit, damage," these little fiddly bits may be kind of what's missing for you.

Initiative, as discussed earlier, is "the key factor as to which side strikes blows first each melee round. This is modified by creatures with attack routines, whether by natural or magical ability. It is also modified by weapon length when one opponent is charging into melee contact." (p. 66)

Simultaneous Initiative: Here we have the first direct reference to weapon speed. When two people have the same initiative, first strike goes to the combatant with the lower weapon speed. Thus, a short sword will always have first strike over a long sword, and a long sword over a great sword.

Weapon Speed Factor: This section expounds upon what weapon speed factor entails within the scope of play. It is, as one would expect, a number that represents the heft, balance, prep and recovery time to use a weapon. However, it is not normally figured into initiative due to the 1-minute melee duration, but only acts as a "tie breaker" for combatants who share the same initiative score.

This being said, "When weapon speed factor is the determinant of which opponent strikes first in a melee round, there is a chance that one opponent will be able to make multiple attacks." (p. 66) This means that the only time you get multiple attacks due to weapon speed is when you share the same initiative as your opponent and strike first as a result of having a faster weapon.

In this case, if your weapon speed is half that of your opponent's, you can strike twice. If your weapon speed is at least ten less that of your opponent's, you get to strike three times: twice before your opponent, and once simultaneously with him. Suddenly, despite the reach, a short sword vs. a pike or halberd is a very attractive option indeed.  Remember, however, that as explained earlier, reach is also important, as an opponent with a longer weapon gets first strike as you close to within striking distance.  Thus, an attacker with a short sword against a defender with a pike would see the pike wielder striking first, as the short sword wielder closes; the short sword wielder would then attack twice before both he and the pike wielder attacked simultaneously.

Other Weapon Factor Determinants: This section details how the math works on determining when a weapon strikes with respect to a spell's casting time, but it's not very well explained and can be a headache. I'll try to clarify it here.

The formula given is simple enough: First subtract the losing initiative die roll from the wielder's weapon speed. Then subtract the adjusted weapon speed from the spell's casting time. Ignore the odd statement "treating negative results as positive," and rather assume that a negative result means, "comes x segments after the spell completes."

Thus, a character wielding a long sword with a weapon speed of 5 who loses initiative with a roll of 1 is attacking a wizard casting fireball (casting time 3). 5-1=4, and 3-4=-1, The sword would attack 1 segment after the spell completes.

If the sword-wielder had rolled a 2 for initiative, we have 5-1=3, and 3-3=0. The blow would land at the same time as the spell was cast.

If the sword-wielder had rolled a 3, we have 5-3=2 and 3-2=1. The positive result indicates the sword blow strikes 1 segment before the spell completes and disrupt the spell (provided, of course, the attack is successful).

And so on and so forth.

As a side note, this seems to somewhat contradict the earlier statement that spell casting is resolved with missile fire before melee begins.

In my house system initiative is rolled on a d10, adding dexterity bonus and subtracting weapon speed, then proceeding from highest to lowest, with initiative score indicating the segment on which you act. Results over 10 and below 1 function as tie breakers. Missile fire and spells are resolved first, proceeding in order of initiative. Thus, spell casters always begin casting on segment 10, with casting time determining what segment the spell activates on (though I do allow casters to choose to delay casting until they are in regular melee passes, such as with a cleric who anticipates the need to cast a Cure Light Wounds on an injured companion during the fight). In the case of the fire ball, the caster begins on 10 and the spell activates on 7. Any character--missile or melee--who acts on segment 7-10 can disrupt the spell. But that's just how I roll, and no, it ain't perfect!

Striking to Subdue: Interestingly here, there is no penalty to attempt to inflict subdual damage with a bladed weapon as there is in later editions. One simply decides to strike to subdue, and 75% of damage done is then temporary damage, with 25% being "real." This particular section doesn't break down how temporary damage works.

Special "To Hit" Bonuses: I really sort of wonder why all this information under "Further Actions" was not placed under the "MELEE" section on page 69, but it is what it is, I suppose. Here we are told that off-balance or encumbered opponents grant a +2 to hit; stunned, slowed, or partially bound opponents grant +4; and sleeping, held, paralyzed, or otherwise immobile or helpless opponents can be automatically hit (and, the book states, automatically slain). This is something roundly missing from later editions. In 3.x, for example, one needs to actually roll to hit an opponent (albeit with a huge bonus) to perform a coup-de-grace. It always seemed rather ludicrous to me that it's possible to miss an opponent who is laying there motionless...or that one could somehow fail to, say, slit his throat.
0 Comments - Leave a Comment
]]> Mon, 06 Aug 2012 08:02:57 -0500 http://community.wizards.com/the_grey_elf/blog/2012/08/06/an_exegesis_on_advanced_dungeons__dragons_part_21 http://community.wizards.com/the_grey_elf/blog/2012/08/06/an_exegesis_on_advanced_dungeons__dragons_part_21 FURTHER ACTIONS
Congratulations! We're up to page 66 in the DMG...of 240. I hope I'm providing a comprehensive enough reading for everyone. Of course, some later sections such as Magic Items (pp 125-168) won't explore every single item; only a few iconics, and I'm not going to run down every critter in the monster tables from pp. 196-215, so we're further on that it seems....

Close to Striking Range: This just clarifies that if you move up to your base speed to engage an opponent, combat moves to the next round. A strange contradiction here; this section clarifies that if the opponent is over 1" (10 ft/yards) away, "Play goes to the next round after this, as melee is not possible, although other activity can, of course, take place such as that detailed above." But I seem to recall earlier (or perhaps later; I can't remember where, exactly) it clarified that one can move up to half his base movement and still attack.

Charge
Charging has several factors involved in first edition, rather than simply doubling base speed and granting a bonus to hit and penalty to AC (though in practice, once factors are accounted for, the end result is similar; it's just broken down differently and the rationale explained).

Now, here is the first place where the difference in scale outdoors vs. indoors actually makes a practical difference. Outdoors, with the 1"=10 yard scale, bipedal creatures increase speed by 1/3 for charging; quadrupeds increase it by half-again. The text references Swords & Spells, which is difficult to come by these days. I have a copy (and a PDF), but really, it's not necessary to have this reference here. Swords & Spells is simply a detailed fantasy miniatures mass battle system, and this reference is merely a reference to a table on page 3 of that document, which shows the 1/3 "charge bonus" to movement.

Movement indoors, on the other hand, sees base speed doubled, just like in later editions of the game.

Of course, an opponent must be with 1" at the end of a charge move for melee to take place.

Armor Class of Charging Creatures: in first edition, charging creatures lose their Dexterity Bonus to AC, which results also in AC being penalized by one. This is an important factor to remember, and should very likely be repeated elsewhere, but isn't. I'll repeat: Any character who loses their Dexterity bonus to AC also sees AC penalized by one (thus, AC 3 becomes AC 4). For a character with an 18 Dexterity, this is pretty brutal. What exactly the rationale is for this rule, I cannot say, unless AC granted by armor also counts in the armor's mobility allowance, though that seems off, as every kind of armor, no matter how light or heavy, effectively then grants 1 point of AC for dodging...hrm. Still, this seems to be upheld in the fact that "There is no penalty to AC 10 creatures for charging, however." (p. 66)

Melee At [sic] End of Charge: "Initiative is NOT checked at the end of the charge" (p. 66)... a strange statement, as one would assume that if you begin the charge, it occurs on your initiative turn. However, it goes on to clarify that the opponent with the longer weapon strikes first (a shadowy precursor of 3.x's Threatened Space and Reach). IF the charging creature survives a "first strike" by an opponent with a longer reach weapon, he gains +2 to hit.

Set Weapons Against [sic] Possible Opponent Charge: If an opponent with a longer weapon (such as a spear or pole arm) sets his weapon against a hard object such as a wall, or even angled into the ground, and scores a hit against a charging opponent, the set weapon deals double damage. I might prefer something a tiny bit more robust here, perhaps a contested roll to see if the weapons can be set in such a way that the charging opponent cannot avoid by breaking off the charge...but I suppose it works as-is. It's simple and elegant, and really, if a character decides to charge someone with spears or pole arms...I suppose that's just a risk you knowingly take.

Strike Blows
The first few sub-sections of this part deal with weapon speed, a much debated element of first edition AD&D. Most of us who use weapon speed, I daresay, have adopted some adaptation of the second edition formula, where weapon speed simply directly influences initiative. That's certainly the system I use. But I'll try and simplify and make sense of the actual first edition system here, which is actually not all that complex and would work just fine by the book.

Indeed, for those who often complain that first edition combat isn't robust enough, and just boils down to "hit, damage, hit, damage," these little fiddly bits may be kind of what's missing for you.

Initiative, as discussed earlier, is "the key factor as to which side strikes blows first each melee round. This is modified by creatures with attack routines, whether by natural or magical ability. It is also modified by weapon length when one opponent is charging into melee contact." (p. 66)

Simultaneous Initiative: Here we have the first direct reference to weapon speed. When two people have the same initiative, first strike goes to the combatant with the lower weapon speed. Thus, a short sword will always have first strike over a long sword, and a long sword over a great sword.

Weapon Speed Factor: This section expounds upon what weapon speed factor entails within the scope of play. It is, as one would expect, a number that represents the heft, balance, prep and recovery time to use a weapon. However, it is not normally figured into initiative due to the 1-minute melee duration, but only acts as a "tie breaker" for combatants who share the same initiative score.

This being said, "When weapon speed factor is the determinant of which opponent strikes first in a melee round, there is a chance that one opponent will be able to make multiple attacks." (p. 66) This means that the only time you get multiple attacks due to weapon speed is when you share the same initiative as your opponent and strike first as a result of having a faster weapon.

In this case, if your weapon speed is half that of your opponent's, you can strike twice. If your weapon speed is at least ten less that of your opponent's, you get to strike three times: twice before your opponent, and once simultaneously with him. Suddenly, despite the reach, a short sword vs. a pike or halberd is a very attractive option indeed.  Remember, however, that as explained earlier, reach is also important, as an opponent with a longer weapon gets first strike as you close to within striking distance.  Thus, an attacker with a short sword against a defender with a pike would see the pike wielder striking first, as the short sword wielder closes; the short sword wielder would then attack twice before both he and the pike wielder attacked simultaneously.

Other Weapon Factor Determinants: This section details how the math works on determining when a weapon strikes with respect to a spell's casting time, but it's not very well explained and can be a headache. I'll try to clarify it here.

The formula given is simple enough: First subtract the losing initiative die roll from the wielder's weapon speed. Then subtract the adjusted weapon speed from the spell's casting time. Ignore the odd statement "treating negative results as positive," and rather assume that a negative result means, "comes x segments after the spell completes."

Thus, a character wielding a long sword with a weapon speed of 5 who loses initiative with a roll of 1 is attacking a wizard casting fireball (casting time 3). 5-1=4, and 3-4=-1, The sword would attack 1 segment after the spell completes.

If the sword-wielder had rolled a 2 for initiative, we have 5-1=3, and 3-3=0. The blow would land at the same time as the spell was cast.

If the sword-wielder had rolled a 3, we have 5-3=2 and 3-2=1. The positive result indicates the sword blow strikes 1 segment before the spell completes and disrupt the spell (provided, of course, the attack is successful).

And so on and so forth.

As a side note, this seems to somewhat contradict the earlier statement that spell casting is resolved with missile fire before melee begins.

In my house system initiative is rolled on a d10, adding dexterity bonus and subtracting weapon speed, then proceeding from highest to lowest, with initiative score indicating the segment on which you act. Results over 10 and below 1 function as tie breakers. Missile fire and spells are resolved first, proceeding in order of initiative. Thus, spell casters always begin casting on segment 10, with casting time determining what segment the spell activates on (though I do allow casters to choose to delay casting until they are in regular melee passes, such as with a cleric who anticipates the need to cast a Cure Light Wounds on an injured companion during the fight). In the case of the fire ball, the caster begins on 10 and the spell activates on 7. Any character--missile or melee--who acts on segment 7-10 can disrupt the spell. But that's just how I roll, and no, it ain't perfect!

Striking to Subdue: Interestingly here, there is no penalty to attempt to inflict subdual damage with a bladed weapon as there is in later editions. One simply decides to strike to subdue, and 75% of damage done is then temporary damage, with 25% being "real." This particular section doesn't break down how temporary damage works.

Special "To Hit" Bonuses: I really sort of wonder why all this information under "Further Actions" was not placed under the "MELEE" section on page 69, but it is what it is, I suppose. Here we are told that off-balance or encumbered opponents grant a +2 to hit; stunned, slowed, or partially bound opponents grant +4; and sleeping, held, paralyzed, or otherwise immobile or helpless opponents can be automatically hit (and, the book states, automatically slain). This is something roundly missing from later editions. In 3.x, for example, one needs to actually roll to hit an opponent (albeit with a huge bonus) to perform a coup-de-grace. It always seemed rather ludicrous to me that it's possible to miss an opponent who is laying there motionless...or that one could somehow fail to, say, slit his throat.
0 Comments - Leave a Comment
]]> 0 Wow...this kind of sucks.
This makes me rather angry as there were some really good comments left. Please be assured that I did not delete a single comment from my blog.

I hope WotC is aware of this issue and straightens it out soon...
0 Comments - Leave a Comment
]]> Wed, 01 Aug 2012 11:06:41 -0500 http://community.wizards.com/the_grey_elf/blog/2012/08/01/wow...this_kind_of_sucks. http://community.wizards.com/the_grey_elf/blog/2012/08/01/wow...this_kind_of_sucks.
This makes me rather angry as there were some really good comments left. Please be assured that I did not delete a single comment from my blog.

I hope WotC is aware of this issue and straightens it out soon...
0 Comments - Leave a Comment
]]> 0 An Exegesis on Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Part 20 SPELLCASTING DURING MELEE
Believe it or not, here (along with "breaking off from melee," about 5 pages down the line) we see the roots of attacks of opportunity, all the way back in first edition.

In later editions, with their 6-second melee rounds (equivalent to a segment in AD&D), it was sometimes hard to reconcile spell disruption if you really took the time to think about it. After all, if a spell took one action to cast (and you could even move after), how can someone hit you and disrupt it?

In AD&D, most spells higher than third level had a casting time of at least one round, which meant they took a full minute of ritual to get off (Spells of third level and below, incidentally, mostly had casting times equal to their level in segments, which, as a side note, is why I use a d10 for initiative; lets me know exactly what segment a character acts on).

A great deal goes on in that minute's worth of time--and there's plenty of time for someone to whack you with a club or shoot you with a bow while casting. Also, there was no concentration check for disruption. You got hit and took damage, your spell fizzled. Period. This may seem harsh, but consider the sheer power of higher level wizards in first edition. The ability to disrupt their spells was a powerful balancing factor in the game.

This means that while in melee combat, a wizard could feasibly and safely cast a first level spell, so long as no enemies act on the same segment as he. A second level spell could be safely used so long as nobody acts within two segments, and a third, so long as he has three segments' worth of free movement.

A fourth level or higher spell, however, he'd have problems with unless his enemy missed him on a melee attack.

The book gives us five guidelines for spell casting in melee.

1. Casters must note what spell they intend to cast (and its casting time) before initiative dice are rolled. This makes sense on some level, particularly if he may be casting a higher level spell requiring him to begin casting immediately. On another level, if he's casting a lower level spell requiring only one or two segments to complete, there's no reason (in my opinion) that the DM shouldn't allow him to change his mind if, for example, he's attacked before his turn.

This brings up another interesting interpretive point. Do magic users cast on their initiative segment or no? The book indicates that they attack along with ranged attacks, which would mean that spells, like missile fire, are always resolved first...or at least, are begun first. That would seem to jibe with the requirement above that casters have to declare their spell before initiative is rolled. The book remains difficult on this, however; do missile weapons act on a completely separate initiative sequence? Generally speaking, I have everyone roll for initiative once. I then resolve missile fire in the order in which their dice would otherwise indicate (basically ignoring the initiative scores of those who are engaging in melee combat until this is done), then move to melee. Magic users casting spells would, I presume, work the same way. However, while they'd begin casting along with ranged troops, they would complete casting on the appropriate segment of melee combat as indicated by their spell's casting time. Thus, all spell casters begin casting on segment 1 of melee combat, regardless of their initiative die. First level spells would then activate on segment 2, second level on segment 3, and third level on segment 4. This leaves an opening for a caster using a first level spell to be disrupted, if an enemy has rolled a 10 (or higher) for initiative (on my house initiative system), allowing him to act on the first segment (basically just after missile fire goes off).

2. The by-the-book system for initiative isn't much different; it's just that all attacks are begun on segments 1-6 of combat (p. 65, DMG). The second point for handling spell casting in melee--ignoring my interpretation using my initiative system above--states that all attacks against the spell caster come on the segment indicated by the winning side's initiative die, even if the PCs' side is the winner. I'm having a hard time working this bit out, but I presume the idea is that it's a balancing factor to allow enemies a chance to disrupt the spell.

3. Intelligent creatures will, lacking other specific motivations, always attack a spell caster first, as all intelligent creatures can recognize the danger of spells and magic users.

4. The spell caster loses his or her Dexterity Reaction Bonus to AC when casting in melee combat.

5. Any successful attack or non-saved-against attack disrupts the spell. This is a cause of much debate amongst (shall I say it?) munchkins. For years there were players that would argue, "if I poke him with a pointy stick, even though it doesn't really damage him, that's an attack so it should ruin his spell!" To that I give a resounding NO. To qualify as a successful attack, it has to do real damage or cause some other quantifiable negative effect (such as an enemy caster throwing off a sleep spell before the PC caster finishes his spell).

Now, here's an interesting tidbit. Unless I am mistaken, activating a magic item such as a wand in 3.x provoked an AoO (and I could be mistaken; it's been a good while since I played 3.x). In AD&D, magic items are single attacks that cannot be disrupted. It does clarify that rods, wands, staffs, etc., attack with missile discharge.

Effects of Cover on Spells and Spell-like powers: Cover provides its normal AC bonus to saving throws against area effect or damaging spells. Further, if 90% cover is available, a successful "half-damage" save means no damage will be suffered. Good stuff.

Monster Charm Power: This alters the "charm person or monster" spell-like ability of monsters such as nixies and vampires. Unlike the spell of the same name, monster charm powers are more like domination; not only is the subject favorably inclined towards the monster, but he or she is, until the power wears off, subject to commands from his or her "master." Telepathic communication is possible within 60' or line of sight (whichever is greater), and the subject will obey any command that isn't physically harmful, including giving away worldly possessions, betraying friends, etc, but not committing suicide or attacking an obviously superior foe (a vampire couldn't make a third level thrall attack a Type VI demon, for example).

TURNING UNDEAD
We're all pretty well familiar with how this works. Even in 3.x the cleric made his check and referenced a chart to see the success of the action. This is one of the very few elements of D&D that didn't change much up through third edition (I'm not going to compare 4th, as it's the first version of the game, IMO, where the rules disconnect is so great as to make it a wholly different game from prior editions--and I'd ask we not discuss the good or bad of that here. There's a preponderance of 4e discussion threads all over the D&D boards for that).

Clerics, rather than having a set number of turn attempts per day as in later editions, can attempt to turn any given type of undead once per encounter. In effect, you get one shot at it, and if it fails you can't try again next round...though if there's a second cleric in your group, she can give it a shot.

That being said, it is specific that it's a type of undead. So long as you're successful in your attempt, you can turn a second type of undead in the same encounter. That means if you turn a group of zombies (and are successful), you can then try and turn the skeletons with them next round. If that's successful, you can move on to the mummy that's with them, etc. The book clarifies that the DM may opt to disallow turning for the most powerful among the undead. So if the aforementioned group of zombies, skeletons and a mummy is led by a vampire, the DM could grant "turn immunity" to the vampire for this encounter, though he should inform the cleric's player of that.

Evil Clerics: Just as in later editions, evil clerics can compel undead to obey them, rather than turning the creatures. If the cleric gains a "Turn" result on his attempt against such creatures, they will remain neutral or serve the cleric for up to 24 hours (24 hours minus the minimum number needed to turn the creature).

It's interesting that the book discusses creatures being neutral or serving, but gives no advice on how to adjudicate neutrality vs. servitude. The implication is that very powerful undead like liches or demons and devils (yes, in first edition, the turning ability works against creatures from the "lower" planes as well as on corporeal undead) will be neutral, while those of ghost or vampire status or less will serve, but it's not 100% clear.

Hostile action against undead cancels the cleric's control over them.

Counter-affecting: enemy clerics can try to cancel a cleric's turn or control ability by making his own turn check. Straightforward, but a bit easy as it doesn't take the difference in power between the two clerics into account. I'd probably rule that to do this the counter-effect has to take place via turning an undead with hit dice equivalent to the enemy cleric (i.e. you're not re-turning the undead in question; you're attempting to turn the power of the other cleric).

Evil Areas: Some areas can be designated "evil," inflicting a penalty to attempts to turn undead in that area at the DM's discretion. This is similar to Turn Resistance in later editions of the game, but associated with an area rather than a creature.
0 Comments - Leave a Comment
]]> Wed, 01 Aug 2012 08:12:38 -0500 http://community.wizards.com/the_grey_elf/blog/2012/08/01/an_exegesis_on_advanced_dungeons__dragons_part_20 http://community.wizards.com/the_grey_elf/blog/2012/08/01/an_exegesis_on_advanced_dungeons__dragons_part_20 SPELLCASTING DURING MELEE
Believe it or not, here (along with "breaking off from melee," about 5 pages down the line) we see the roots of attacks of opportunity, all the way back in first edition.

In later editions, with their 6-second melee rounds (equivalent to a segment in AD&D), it was sometimes hard to reconcile spell disruption if you really took the time to think about it. After all, if a spell took one action to cast (and you could even move after), how can someone hit you and disrupt it?

In AD&D, most spells higher than third level had a casting time of at least one round, which meant they took a full minute of ritual to get off (Spells of third level and below, incidentally, mostly had casting times equal to their level in segments, which, as a side note, is why I use a d10 for initiative; lets me know exactly what segment a character acts on).

A great deal goes on in that minute's worth of time--and there's plenty of time for someone to whack you with a club or shoot you with a bow while casting. Also, there was no concentration check for disruption. You got hit and took damage, your spell fizzled. Period. This may seem harsh, but consider the sheer power of higher level wizards in first edition. The ability to disrupt their spells was a powerful balancing factor in the game.

This means that while in melee combat, a wizard could feasibly and safely cast a first level spell, so long as no enemies act on the same segment as he. A second level spell could be safely used so long as nobody acts within two segments, and a third, so long as he has three segments' worth of free movement.

A fourth level or higher spell, however, he'd have problems with unless his enemy missed him on a melee attack.

The book gives us five guidelines for spell casting in melee.

1. Casters must note what spell they intend to cast (and its casting time) before initiative dice are rolled. This makes sense on some level, particularly if he may be casting a higher level spell requiring him to begin casting immediately. On another level, if he's casting a lower level spell requiring only one or two segments to complete, there's no reason (in my opinion) that the DM shouldn't allow him to change his mind if, for example, he's attacked before his turn.

This brings up another interesting interpretive point. Do magic users cast on their initiative segment or no? The book indicates that they attack along with ranged attacks, which would mean that spells, like missile fire, are always resolved first...or at least, are begun first. That would seem to jibe with the requirement above that casters have to declare their spell before initiative is rolled. The book remains difficult on this, however; do missile weapons act on a completely separate initiative sequence? Generally speaking, I have everyone roll for initiative once. I then resolve missile fire in the order in which their dice would otherwise indicate (basically ignoring the initiative scores of those who are engaging in melee combat until this is done), then move to melee. Magic users casting spells would, I presume, work the same way. However, while they'd begin casting along with ranged troops, they would complete casting on the appropriate segment of melee combat as indicated by their spell's casting time. Thus, all spell casters begin casting on segment 1 of melee combat, regardless of their initiative die. First level spells would then activate on segment 2, second level on segment 3, and third level on segment 4. This leaves an opening for a caster using a first level spell to be disrupted, if an enemy has rolled a 10 (or higher) for initiative (on my house initiative system), allowing him to act on the first segment (basically just after missile fire goes off).

2. The by-the-book system for initiative isn't much different; it's just that all attacks are begun on segments 1-6 of combat (p. 65, DMG). The second point for handling spell casting in melee--ignoring my interpretation using my initiative system above--states that all attacks against the spell caster come on the segment indicated by the winning side's initiative die, even if the PCs' side is the winner. I'm having a hard time working this bit out, but I presume the idea is that it's a balancing factor to allow enemies a chance to disrupt the spell.

3. Intelligent creatures will, lacking other specific motivations, always attack a spell caster first, as all intelligent creatures can recognize the danger of spells and magic users.

4. The spell caster loses his or her Dexterity Reaction Bonus to AC when casting in melee combat.

5. Any successful attack or non-saved-against attack disrupts the spell. This is a cause of much debate amongst (shall I say it?) munchkins. For years there were players that would argue, "if I poke him with a pointy stick, even though it doesn't really damage him, that's an attack so it should ruin his spell!" To that I give a resounding NO. To qualify as a successful attack, it has to do real damage or cause some other quantifiable negative effect (such as an enemy caster throwing off a sleep spell before the PC caster finishes his spell).

Now, here's an interesting tidbit. Unless I am mistaken, activating a magic item such as a wand in 3.x provoked an AoO (and I could be mistaken; it's been a good while since I played 3.x). In AD&D, magic items are single attacks that cannot be disrupted. It does clarify that rods, wands, staffs, etc., attack with missile discharge.

Effects of Cover on Spells and Spell-like powers: Cover provides its normal AC bonus to saving throws against area effect or damaging spells. Further, if 90% cover is available, a successful "half-damage" save means no damage will be suffered. Good stuff.

Monster Charm Power: This alters the "charm person or monster" spell-like ability of monsters such as nixies and vampires. Unlike the spell of the same name, monster charm powers are more like domination; not only is the subject favorably inclined towards the monster, but he or she is, until the power wears off, subject to commands from his or her "master." Telepathic communication is possible within 60' or line of sight (whichever is greater), and the subject will obey any command that isn't physically harmful, including giving away worldly possessions, betraying friends, etc, but not committing suicide or attacking an obviously superior foe (a vampire couldn't make a third level thrall attack a Type VI demon, for example).

TURNING UNDEAD
We're all pretty well familiar with how this works. Even in 3.x the cleric made his check and referenced a chart to see the success of the action. This is one of the very few elements of D&D that didn't change much up through third edition (I'm not going to compare 4th, as it's the first version of the game, IMO, where the rules disconnect is so great as to make it a wholly different game from prior editions--and I'd ask we not discuss the good or bad of that here. There's a preponderance of 4e discussion threads all over the D&D boards for that).

Clerics, rather than having a set number of turn attempts per day as in later editions, can attempt to turn any given type of undead once per encounter. In effect, you get one shot at it, and if it fails you can't try again next round...though if there's a second cleric in your group, she can give it a shot.

That being said, it is specific that it's a type of undead. So long as you're successful in your attempt, you can turn a second type of undead in the same encounter. That means if you turn a group of zombies (and are successful), you can then try and turn the skeletons with them next round. If that's successful, you can move on to the mummy that's with them, etc. The book clarifies that the DM may opt to disallow turning for the most powerful among the undead. So if the aforementioned group of zombies, skeletons and a mummy is led by a vampire, the DM could grant "turn immunity" to the vampire for this encounter, though he should inform the cleric's player of that.

Evil Clerics: Just as in later editions, evil clerics can compel undead to obey them, rather than turning the creatures. If the cleric gains a "Turn" result on his attempt against such creatures, they will remain neutral or serve the cleric for up to 24 hours (24 hours minus the minimum number needed to turn the creature).

It's interesting that the book discusses creatures being neutral or serving, but gives no advice on how to adjudicate neutrality vs. servitude. The implication is that very powerful undead like liches or demons and devils (yes, in first edition, the turning ability works against creatures from the "lower" planes as well as on corporeal undead) will be neutral, while those of ghost or vampire status or less will serve, but it's not 100% clear.

Hostile action against undead cancels the cleric's control over them.

Counter-affecting: enemy clerics can try to cancel a cleric's turn or control ability by making his own turn check. Straightforward, but a bit easy as it doesn't take the difference in power between the two clerics into account. I'd probably rule that to do this the counter-effect has to take place via turning an undead with hit dice equivalent to the enemy cleric (i.e. you're not re-turning the undead in question; you're attempting to turn the power of the other cleric).

Evil Areas: Some areas can be designated "evil," inflicting a penalty to attempts to turn undead in that area at the DM's discretion. This is similar to Turn Resistance in later editions of the game, but associated with an area rather than a creature.
0 Comments - Leave a Comment
]]> 0 An Exegesis on Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Part 19 ENCOUNTER REACTIONS
Here we have the classic reaction system, which really (at least, up through 3.5) never changed much, save that it moved from % dice to a straight d20 roll in 3.x. And we have morale checks.

Oh, how I miss morale checks. So much fun to be had in morale checks.

Next, we have guidelines for avoiding encounters, mostly reminders that the DM should know his NPC's well enough to be able to determine whether or not they pursue a fleeing party who has been detected.

The single paragraph regarding attempts to Parley is amusing, and once again indicative of a certain come-and-go antagonism between DMs and players in the old days, particularly the following:

"It is common for player characters to attack first, parley afterwards. It is recommended that you devise encounters which penalize such action so as to encourage parleying attempts--which will usually be fruitless, of course!" (DMG, 63).

MISSILE DISCHARGE
There is information here regarding damage to items hurled or fired into the area effect of a spell, i.e. a hammer thrown at a target just as a fireball goes off in the same spot. Generally, it's just a nod to the "Item Saving Throw" table which is found later on page 80 (but not here cross-referenced for page number; naughty, naughty).

The section on missile discharge into melee, while it makes some good sense, is a bit overcomplicated compared to systems that came later. Rather than simply assigning the target a degree of cover for each opponent in the group, this seems to indicate it's impossible to target a specific combatant in melee, and any missiles fired into a melee have a fairly random chance to hit any combatant based on the size and number of participants.

Personally, I prefer the ability to target a specific individual, with random hits occurring should the shot miss due to the individual's cover (that being other combatants).

The only exception to this rule, Gygax writes, is if there is an opponent that is significantly larger than everyone else. In this case, he can be targeted with no penalties or worries. So if you're fighting a dragon or giant, you're fine to shoot it.

For Giants throwing rocks, the reader is directed to the rules on small catapults, giant-hurled boulders being similar in nature.

Strength Bonus Considerations: Here we have the first mention of what would later be known as "Strength bows," or in 3.x, "Composite bows" (composite bows were a wholly different animal in first edition, being simply just another type of bow). In first edition, a strength bow would grant the strength bonus to hit, as well as to damage, unlike later editions, where it only added to damage. Slung or hurled weapons, of course, always gain strength bonus.

Dexterity Penalty and Bonus Considerations: Dexterity "to hit" adjustment for missile weapons applied to initiative in first ed. as well as the actual bonus or penalty to hit an opponent.

An interesting thing to ponder: Does a strength bow then gain both the Strength and Dexterity bonuses to hit? This isn't clear in the rules, but would make, for example, a strong thief a very deadly opponent indeed.

Note regarding giant and machine missiles: A blurb reminding (or informing) the DM that giants or siege engines throwing great rocks don't allow targets their dexterity bonus to AC, as they are too big. Since earlier we were directed to the siege engine rules for Giant-hurled rocks...this bit probably belongs in that section, not here.

Missile fire cover and concealment adjustments: Here we have the basic % of cover and concealment translated into AC bonus for the target. Personally, I've always preferred to just translate the % cover into a straight miss-chance, with failure on the % dice indicating striking the cover, and the % concealment into a hide percentage (you can't attack what you can't see). It's an extra die roll, but it replaces extra calculation to determine whether you would've hit the target if not for the cover and blah, blah, blah, so it's a trade off. It also, as I mentioned earlier, makes for a very simple method of determining firing into melee.

GRENADE-LIKE MISSILES
Here we have the breakdown of damage and splash area for things like oil, acid, holy water, and poison. Interestingly, a character's strength has nothing at all to do with how far he can throw something. This always kind of bugged me; all thrown items have a range of 1/2/3".

Here we do get into what I think may be a bit of overcomplication, but what at the same time could add a lot of fun "Groan!" moments: when you hit with a grenade-like missile, you have to roll again on the item saving throw table to see if it actually breaks.

Splash damage extends out to 3' surrounding the point of impact. It's somewhat frustrating how Gygax jumps between inches and feet to identify areas and distance, though presumably measurements in feet denote that regardless of indoor or outdoor scale, that's the area/range/distance.

Once again here we have a reiteration that boulders have a 1' or 2' area of effect. More information is given that for every 14 lbs. of weight, 1d6 damage is dealt (or 1 point of damage per foot of distance dropped between 10 and 60').

A simple system is given for determining the direction and number of feet by which a missed throw misses. 1d6 determines feet, 1d8 direction. Easy and intuitive to remember, though oddly the d8 begins with long right (1:30) instead of straight ahead (12:00).

One more interesting tidbit: a reminder that unholy water damages paladins. Good stuff; I'd nearly forgotten that.
0 Comments - Leave a Comment
]]> Fri, 27 Jul 2012 11:37:56 -0500 http://community.wizards.com/the_grey_elf/blog/2012/07/27/an_exegesis_on_advanced_dungeons__dragons_part_19 http://community.wizards.com/the_grey_elf/blog/2012/07/27/an_exegesis_on_advanced_dungeons__dragons_part_19 ENCOUNTER REACTIONS
Here we have the classic reaction system, which really (at least, up through 3.5) never changed much, save that it moved from % dice to a straight d20 roll in 3.x. And we have morale checks.

Oh, how I miss morale checks. So much fun to be had in morale checks.

Next, we have guidelines for avoiding encounters, mostly reminders that the DM should know his NPC's well enough to be able to determine whether or not they pursue a fleeing party who has been detected.

The single paragraph regarding attempts to Parley is amusing, and once again indicative of a certain come-and-go antagonism between DMs and players in the old days, particularly the following:

"It is common for player characters to attack first, parley afterwards. It is recommended that you devise encounters which penalize such action so as to encourage parleying attempts--which will usually be fruitless, of course!" (DMG, 63).

MISSILE DISCHARGE
There is information here regarding damage to items hurled or fired into the area effect of a spell, i.e. a hammer thrown at a target just as a fireball goes off in the same spot. Generally, it's just a nod to the "Item Saving Throw" table which is found later on page 80 (but not here cross-referenced for page number; naughty, naughty).

The section on missile discharge into melee, while it makes some good sense, is a bit overcomplicated compared to systems that came later. Rather than simply assigning the target a degree of cover for each opponent in the group, this seems to indicate it's impossible to target a specific combatant in melee, and any missiles fired into a melee have a fairly random chance to hit any combatant based on the size and number of participants.

Personally, I prefer the ability to target a specific individual, with random hits occurring should the shot miss due to the individual's cover (that being other combatants).

The only exception to this rule, Gygax writes, is if there is an opponent that is significantly larger than everyone else. In this case, he can be targeted with no penalties or worries. So if you're fighting a dragon or giant, you're fine to shoot it.

For Giants throwing rocks, the reader is directed to the rules on small catapults, giant-hurled boulders being similar in nature.

Strength Bonus Considerations: Here we have the first mention of what would later be known as "Strength bows," or in 3.x, "Composite bows" (composite bows were a wholly different animal in first edition, being simply just another type of bow). In first edition, a strength bow would grant the strength bonus to hit, as well as to damage, unlike later editions, where it only added to damage. Slung or hurled weapons, of course, always gain strength bonus.

Dexterity Penalty and Bonus Considerations: Dexterity "to hit" adjustment for missile weapons applied to initiative in first ed. as well as the actual bonus or penalty to hit an opponent.

An interesting thing to ponder: Does a strength bow then gain both the Strength and Dexterity bonuses to hit? This isn't clear in the rules, but would make, for example, a strong thief a very deadly opponent indeed.

Note regarding giant and machine missiles: A blurb reminding (or informing) the DM that giants or siege engines throwing great rocks don't allow targets their dexterity bonus to AC, as they are too big. Since earlier we were directed to the siege engine rules for Giant-hurled rocks...this bit probably belongs in that section, not here.

Missile fire cover and concealment adjustments: Here we have the basic % of cover and concealment translated into AC bonus for the target. Personally, I've always preferred to just translate the % cover into a straight miss-chance, with failure on the % dice indicating striking the cover, and the % concealment into a hide percentage (you can't attack what you can't see). It's an extra die roll, but it replaces extra calculation to determine whether you would've hit the target if not for the cover and blah, blah, blah, so it's a trade off. It also, as I mentioned earlier, makes for a very simple method of determining firing into melee.

GRENADE-LIKE MISSILES
Here we have the breakdown of damage and splash area for things like oil, acid, holy water, and poison. Interestingly, a character's strength has nothing at all to do with how far he can throw something. This always kind of bugged me; all thrown items have a range of 1/2/3".

Here we do get into what I think may be a bit of overcomplication, but what at the same time could add a lot of fun "Groan!" moments: when you hit with a grenade-like missile, you have to roll again on the item saving throw table to see if it actually breaks.

Splash damage extends out to 3' surrounding the point of impact. It's somewhat frustrating how Gygax jumps between inches and feet to identify areas and distance, though presumably measurements in feet denote that regardless of indoor or outdoor scale, that's the area/range/distance.

Once again here we have a reiteration that boulders have a 1' or 2' area of effect. More information is given that for every 14 lbs. of weight, 1d6 damage is dealt (or 1 point of damage per foot of distance dropped between 10 and 60').

A simple system is given for determining the direction and number of feet by which a missed throw misses. 1d6 determines feet, 1d8 direction. Easy and intuitive to remember, though oddly the d8 begins with long right (1:30) instead of straight ahead (12:00).

One more interesting tidbit: a reminder that unholy water damages paladins. Good stuff; I'd nearly forgotten that.
0 Comments - Leave a Comment
]]> 0 An Exegesis on Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Part 18 COMBAT

Encounters, Combat, and Initiative
This fairly well-done section gives us all the basics of AD&D Combat in less than two columns of text. It begins with a clarification that combat is broken down into one minute melee rounds (a serious change from later editions, wherein a melee round is equivalent to what would be a segment in AD&D). This also results in a far greater abstraction of events than appears in later editions of the game, and in other games that have followed. It's not that AD&D combat was not cinematic; it's that all those cinematic elements were on the impetus of the DM to describe. The old adage, "it's all in how good your GM is" was never truer than in the handling of combat in AD&D first edition. Your attack roll does not represent the fact that you only swing your sword once per minute. Rather, it represents an assumption that the monsters you're fighting are in fact trained (or at least, desperate) warriors themselves, and that roll is the sum total of the openings you get in a one-minute battle that may allow you to have an effect upon your opponent.

I don't say "damage your opponent," because that presumes a largely mistaken idea, which is that hit points represent the physical damage a character can take before dying.

Wrong.

The book is pretty clear: any character or monster or creature can be killed by a single direct sword blow. What, then, does the escalation of Hit Points represent? They represent your prowess in battle situations. They represent endurance, skill, parrying, dodging, the works. The decreasing of a hit point total represents all of those near misses and exertion that wear down a warrior in battle. The increasing base--after the first hit die--represents your character getting better at going the distance before taking that fatal hit. The closest any character comes to an actual total of increasing damage points (again, beyond the very first hit die) is his Constitution bonus, though even that is not an exact representation and itself represents endurance as well as toughness. Gygax writes:

Damage scored to characters or certain monsters is actually not substantially physical -- a mere nick or scratch until the last handful of hit points are considered -- it is a matter fo wearing away the endurance, the luck, the magical protections. With respect to most monsters such damage is, in fact, more physically substantial, although as with adjustments in armor class rating for speed and agility, there are also similar additions in hit points. (DMG, p. 61)

This is getting slightly ahead of ourselves; a more substantial discussion of hit points comes 20 pages later, and I'll address it in more detail when I get there, but it fits here as well, and it is here that it's first mentioned.

It's not a perfect system by any means--particularly when one considers the variance in weapon damage. If hit points represent dodging, weaving, and parrying, then why does a long sword deal more damage than a short sword? Surely it doesn't take more energy to duck one or the other. And why doesn't swinging your weapon cause you to suffer hit point loss? Swinging a two-handed sword or battle axe is heavy business. Still, as an abstract, it works wonderfully, and really, I've yet to encounter a system where combat runs as fast as it did in AD&D. But we'll get to that later (and I'd ask people to withhold comments on the speed of play or lack thereof until I get to the combat matrices).

Following the explanation and rationale for 1-minute melee rounds, we are given a step-by-step breakdown of how combat works in game. The steps are as follows:

1. Determine surprise conditions
2. If not already known by the DM, determine distance (most people, I think, skip this step)
3. Following surprise, or if equal conditions exist, roll for initiative
4. Adjudicate actions taken (avoid, wait, attack melee or missile, parley, grapple, etc.)
5. Determine results of actions (damage, held conditions, etc.)
6. Lather, rinse, repeat from step 3.

Surprise:

The instructions on determining surprise are pretty clear: roll a d6, and a result of 1 or 2 indicates surprise. A single roll is made for the party, and a single roll is made for all enemies, using the most favorable conditions available. Thus, if a party has, for example, a ranger that is surprised only on a roll of 1, his condition affects the entire party (making rangers really useful to have around).

Individual characters (and monsters) can mitigate surprise situations based on their Dexterity reaction. In this manner, the party might be surprised, but the thief, with a high Dex score, might get to act as normal during that period.

The difference between the higher and lower results determines how many segments of time the surprising party has to act against the surprised. A segment is noted here parenthetically as six seconds of time. Thus, our time keeping underground is cleverly divided into tens, while still remaining on a 60-minute cycle. Each segment is six seconds. Ten segments are a round (60 seconds/1 minute). Ten rounds form a turn, or ten minutes.

During a surprise segment, a character can perform any action they could take in a single round. In this case, making an attack does, in fact, mean you make a swing of the sword. The surprise basically results in one or more openings for your character's assault. What's worse, surprise is really brutal in AD&D, as if, for example, a party surprises a group of orcs and gets a six on their surprise die while the orcs roll a one, the party may now attack five times before the orcs "wake up."

The exception to this is spellcasting, which is fixed in duration and not dependent upon openings in combat. Thus, only spells with a casting time equal or less than the surprise segments allotted can be cast during the surprise round. Otherwise, the spell can be started, but won't go off until after regular initiative is begun.

My only issue with surprise as it stands is the use of the d6. The options are too limited and too easily mitigated by dexterity bonuses, particularly if a ranger is present in the party. It wouldn't be difficult to maintain similar probabilities using a higher die. Instead of a d6, for example, roll a d12 for surprise, with a 1-4 indicating surprised conditions. A ranger's ability reduces this to 1-2. Of course, the rarity of surprise occurring may have been exactly the intent, but if this is the case, why not just get rid of it altogether?

Next we have a blurb that is mostly advice for the DM to keep in mind when determining factors that may contribute to surprise. Things such as eating, sleeping, pooping (though he calls it "Waste elimination"), distraction, morale, and environment. No real game mechanics are given, just solid DM reminders.

Following Surprise, we are given a brief set of guidelines for determining Distance of random encounters. Basically, we're given a distance of d6+4" (50-100 feet indoors, 50-100 yards outdoors) and then a list of potential modifying factors at the DM's discretion. General extra details that are useful to have if the situation arises, but which I expect won't be used very often, as most DMs will know the distance between parties at the start of an encounter and if they don't many will just wing it.

Initiative
Let's face it--we all know what Initiative is and how it works. The differences here are that in AD&D it's rolled on a d6 (though I always used a d10; I like a larger range of possibilities), the fact that initiative is rolled by group rather than individual, and the way multiple attacks are handled vs. attack routines. An attack routine is your typical claw/claw/bite; creatures with a routine roll all attacks in the routine at the same time. Multiple attacks are a specialized fighter with 3/2 attacks. In this case the second attack, when allowed, comes at the tail end of the round.

If both the winning and losing parties have creatures with multiple attacks (for the sake of argument, two specialized fighters both with an extra attack) the winner goes first and third, the loser second and last.

Damage is inflicted in initiative order as attacks are resolved; the winner first, the loser second. In the case of a tie, all damage is resolved, meaning all parties both take and receive damage. No tie-breaker re-rolls.

Weapon speed does not factor into initiative in first edition, due to the lengthy one-minute melee round. Its effect will be discussed later.

In my own games, I simplify things using an amalgamation of all three editions: Initiative is rolled by each character and monster on a d10, then modified by weapon speed and dexterity bonus.

Footnote: I believe that when I originally wrote this, I had surprise wrong, though that may be in another section...in any case, I was roundly put in my place on the RPGNet forums as to my error; the OSRIC rules have an excellent breakdown of exactly how Surprise works.
0 Comments - Leave a Comment
]]> Thu, 19 Jul 2012 10:18:59 -0500 http://community.wizards.com/the_grey_elf/blog/2012/07/19/an_exegesis_on_advanced_dungeons__dragons_part_18 http://community.wizards.com/the_grey_elf/blog/2012/07/19/an_exegesis_on_advanced_dungeons__dragons_part_18 COMBAT

Encounters, Combat, and Initiative
This fairly well-done section gives us all the basics of AD&D Combat in less than two columns of text. It begins with a clarification that combat is broken down into one minute melee rounds (a serious change from later editions, wherein a melee round is equivalent to what would be a segment in AD&D). This also results in a far greater abstraction of events than appears in later editions of the game, and in other games that have followed. It's not that AD&D combat was not cinematic; it's that all those cinematic elements were on the impetus of the DM to describe. The old adage, "it's all in how good your GM is" was never truer than in the handling of combat in AD&D first edition. Your attack roll does not represent the fact that you only swing your sword once per minute. Rather, it represents an assumption that the monsters you're fighting are in fact trained (or at least, desperate) warriors themselves, and that roll is the sum total of the openings you get in a one-minute battle that may allow you to have an effect upon your opponent.

I don't say "damage your opponent," because that presumes a largely mistaken idea, which is that hit points represent the physical damage a character can take before dying.

Wrong.

The book is pretty clear: any character or monster or creature can be killed by a single direct sword blow. What, then, does the escalation of Hit Points represent? They represent your prowess in battle situations. They represent endurance, skill, parrying, dodging, the works. The decreasing of a hit point total represents all of those near misses and exertion that wear down a warrior in battle. The increasing base--after the first hit die--represents your character getting better at going the distance before taking that fatal hit. The closest any character comes to an actual total of increasing damage points (again, beyond the very first hit die) is his Constitution bonus, though even that is not an exact representation and itself represents endurance as well as toughness. Gygax writes:

Damage scored to characters or certain monsters is actually not substantially physical -- a mere nick or scratch until the last handful of hit points are considered -- it is a matter fo wearing away the endurance, the luck, the magical protections. With respect to most monsters such damage is, in fact, more physically substantial, although as with adjustments in armor class rating for speed and agility, there are also similar additions in hit points. (DMG, p. 61)

This is getting slightly ahead of ourselves; a more substantial discussion of hit points comes 20 pages later, and I'll address it in more detail when I get there, but it fits here as well, and it is here that it's first mentioned.

It's not a perfect system by any means--particularly when one considers the variance in weapon damage. If hit points represent dodging, weaving, and parrying, then why does a long sword deal more damage than a short sword? Surely it doesn't take more energy to duck one or the other. And why doesn't swinging your weapon cause you to suffer hit point loss? Swinging a two-handed sword or battle axe is heavy business. Still, as an abstract, it works wonderfully, and really, I've yet to encounter a system where combat runs as fast as it did in AD&D. But we'll get to that later (and I'd ask people to withhold comments on the speed of play or lack thereof until I get to the combat matrices).

Following the explanation and rationale for 1-minute melee rounds, we are given a step-by-step breakdown of how combat works in game. The steps are as follows:

1. Determine surprise conditions
2. If not already known by the DM, determine distance (most people, I think, skip this step)
3. Following surprise, or if equal conditions exist, roll for initiative
4. Adjudicate actions taken (avoid, wait, attack melee or missile, parley, grapple, etc.)
5. Determine results of actions (damage, held conditions, etc.)
6. Lather, rinse, repeat from step 3.

Surprise:

The instructions on determining surprise are pretty clear: roll a d6, and a result of 1 or 2 indicates surprise. A single roll is made for the party, and a single roll is made for all enemies, using the most favorable conditions available. Thus, if a party has, for example, a ranger that is surprised only on a roll of 1, his condition affects the entire party (making rangers really useful to have around).

Individual characters (and monsters) can mitigate surprise situations based on their Dexterity reaction. In this manner, the party might be surprised, but the thief, with a high Dex score, might get to act as normal during that period.

The difference between the higher and lower results determines how many segments of time the surprising party has to act against the surprised. A segment is noted here parenthetically as six seconds of time. Thus, our time keeping underground is cleverly divided into tens, while still remaining on a 60-minute cycle. Each segment is six seconds. Ten segments are a round (60 seconds/1 minute). Ten rounds form a turn, or ten minutes.

During a surprise segment, a character can perform any action they could take in a single round. In this case, making an attack does, in fact, mean you make a swing of the sword. The surprise basically results in one or more openings for your character's assault. What's worse, surprise is really brutal in AD&D, as if, for example, a party surprises a group of orcs and gets a six on their surprise die while the orcs roll a one, the party may now attack five times before the orcs "wake up."

The exception to this is spellcasting, which is fixed in duration and not dependent upon openings in combat. Thus, only spells with a casting time equal or less than the surprise segments allotted can be cast during the surprise round. Otherwise, the spell can be started, but won't go off until after regular initiative is begun.

My only issue with surprise as it stands is the use of the d6. The options are too limited and too easily mitigated by dexterity bonuses, particularly if a ranger is present in the party. It wouldn't be difficult to maintain similar probabilities using a higher die. Instead of a d6, for example, roll a d12 for surprise, with a 1-4 indicating surprised conditions. A ranger's ability reduces this to 1-2. Of course, the rarity of surprise occurring may have been exactly the intent, but if this is the case, why not just get rid of it altogether?

Next we have a blurb that is mostly advice for the DM to keep in mind when determining factors that may contribute to surprise. Things such as eating, sleeping, pooping (though he calls it "Waste elimination"), distraction, morale, and environment. No real game mechanics are given, just solid DM reminders.

Following Surprise, we are given a brief set of guidelines for determining Distance of random encounters. Basically, we're given a distance of d6+4" (50-100 feet indoors, 50-100 yards outdoors) and then a list of potential modifying factors at the DM's discretion. General extra details that are useful to have if the situation arises, but which I expect won't be used very often, as most DMs will know the distance between parties at the start of an encounter and if they don't many will just wing it.

Initiative
Let's face it--we all know what Initiative is and how it works. The differences here are that in AD&D it's rolled on a d6 (though I always used a d10; I like a larger range of possibilities), the fact that initiative is rolled by group rather than individual, and the way multiple attacks are handled vs. attack routines. An attack routine is your typical claw/claw/bite; creatures with a routine roll all attacks in the routine at the same time. Multiple attacks are a specialized fighter with 3/2 attacks. In this case the second attack, when allowed, comes at the tail end of the round.

If both the winning and losing parties have creatures with multiple attacks (for the sake of argument, two specialized fighters both with an extra attack) the winner goes first and third, the loser second and last.

Damage is inflicted in initiative order as attacks are resolved; the winner first, the loser second. In the case of a tie, all damage is resolved, meaning all parties both take and receive damage. No tie-breaker re-rolls.

Weapon speed does not factor into initiative in first edition, due to the lengthy one-minute melee round. Its effect will be discussed later.

In my own games, I simplify things using an amalgamation of all three editions: Initiative is rolled by each character and monster on a d10, then modified by weapon speed and dexterity bonus.

Footnote: I believe that when I originally wrote this, I had surprise wrong, though that may be in another section...in any case, I was roundly put in my place on the RPGNet forums as to my error; the OSRIC rules have an excellent breakdown of exactly how Surprise works.
0 Comments - Leave a Comment
]]> 0