# How Did You Run AD&D Combat?



## Water Bob (Jan 22, 2012)

Another thread got me curious.  AD&D has the most convoluted, complicated combat round system (mostly the initiative ins-and-outs) of any D&D edition ever published.  I don't think I've ever met anyone who has run 1E AD&D strictly by the book.

In my own games, way back when, so many years ago, we used to throw 1d10 for initiative, and we threw it individually.  The throw was modified by DEX reaction modifier (yes, even melee strikes) and weapon speed factor.  Although we used this system waaaayyy before 2nd edition came out, what we did looked more like 2E than it did 1E.

We also allowed a character to complete his entire round, including movement and all attacks, before the next guy in the initiative chain was allowed to act.  I remember that we used casting time to modify initiative, too, and we'd let the mage player either decide at the beginning of the round which spell he would throw (so that he could include this modifier to nish).  Or, the mage player had the option of picking his spell on his nish but then going later in the round (for example, if a mage threw 3 on his 1d10 nish throw, he could wait until his turn to decide to throw a spell.  If that spell took 4 segments to cast, then the mage acted on nish 7 instead of nish 3, later in the round).

All of this, of course, flies in the face of what was written in the AD&D PHB and DMG.  We didn't use Armor Adjustments to the attack roll, either (though we used them when 2E came around...curious).





THIS is a flow chart to help DMs run AD&D combat by the book, Rules As Written.  Out of curiosity, did any of you blokes ever run AD&D as it is laid out in the rules?  Did you master that beast?

Or, did you (like my group) find some sort of house-rule that made everybody happy?

It would be interesting to see all the permuations that the "official" AD&D combat rules inspired.


----------



## kitcik (Jan 22, 2012)

As I implied in the original thread, I think you'd have to go pretty far afield to be considered "homebrew" in 1E as the whole idea is that the DM ruled and everyone lived by the results. I mean, if you abandoned ThACO and went diceless, that would be homebrew. Gygax intended for the rules to be guidelines.

That said, we did very similar to aMerric:
d6, casting time = segment (we actually did casting time + init = segment), Dex to missile init, faster weapon wins a tie, multiple attacks go first/last


----------



## MerricB (Jan 22, 2012)

kitcik said:


> As I implied in the original thread, I think you'd have to go pretty far afield to be considered "homebrew" in 1E as the whole idea is that the DM ruled and everyone lived by the results. I mean, if you abandoned ThACO and went diceless, that would be homebrew. Gygax intended for the rules to be guidelines.




It's a bit debatable that point with AD&D - Gygax wrote several times that he was trying to write a standardized set of rules suitable for tournaments. 



> d6, casting time = segment (we actually did casting time + init = segment), Dex to missile init, faster weapon wins a tie, multiple attacks go first/last




Incidentally, the reason I don't add the die roll to the segment is that it gives longer spells the possibility of taking place in the next round...

Cheers!


----------



## trancejeremy (Jan 22, 2012)

I started playing while AD&D was in the process of coming out - my friends' older brothers had picked up the booklet D&D and they DMed for us at first, so we didn't use the segment style combat, or the weapon speed/armor factors.

Later on, I never played with anyone that did either, but I never played in any official tournaments.


----------



## Niccodaemus (Jan 22, 2012)

We never added dice rolls to the casting segment. The rational was that the magic user was in the back, and he didn't have anything impeding him from starting his casting at the beginning of the round.

Fighters on the other hand are in dynamic situations, and their opportunity to strike is somewhat governed by chance.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Jan 23, 2012)

When I started ad&d it was without access to the DMG (players dont read THAT!) and the system I played under for several years ("the 4M system") divided the round into 4 discretely resolved parts.  First all melee was resolved, then all missile fire, then magic, then movement.  Initiative was d10 iirc adjusted by dex.  Magic was subdivided into 4+ phases according to casting time.

A year or so after I finally got my own DMG I tried to talk the dm into going "by the book" which was a MESS, but in the aftermath of that debacle I did convince him to use something very like what got used in 2E.

Later tried again on my own as DM to go BTB with 1E initiative but it just made no sense to me and I gave it up. Not till ADDICT did I grok it - and if I had grokked it way back when I started ad&d I'd have argued against using it as strongly as that appalling "4M" garbage.


---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=34.221725,-119.070382


----------



## Water Bob (Jan 24, 2012)

Man in the Funny Hat said:


> First all melee was resolved, then all missile fire, then magic, then movement.




That's actually not bad and better than the you-do-everything-on-your-turn systems.  The problem with a 4M type system, though is that, well, it's boring.  Players like to get in and get their turns done.  Although better to simulate the simultaneous action of a round, a 4M type system goes around the table 4 times with each combat participant doing a small fraction of what he can normally do.  The game resembles a board game more than usual, and it's hard to "live" in the game, imagining you're there.





> A year or so after I finally got my own DMG I tried to talk the dm into going "by the book" which was a MESS....




I'd still like to try the DMG as written one of these days to see if I could make it work.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Jan 24, 2012)

Water Bob said:


> That's actually not bad and better than the you-do-everything-on-your-turn systems. The problem with a 4M type system, though is that, well, it's boring. Players like to get in and get their turns done.



Actually, it went quite fast as everyone knew it well and weren't trying to game it - but it was indeed _quite_ boring.  It's real failing was that it was exceptionally ruthless for spellcasters, moreso even than BTB which was already pretty ruthless (though I didn't know that til much later).

If a spellcaster wanted to try and cast a spell in combat EVERYONE gets to hit him or shoot at him regardless of what anyones initiative result was - and then enemy spellcasters might still be able to land one on you if you didn't stick to faster spells.  I just couldn't accept that in a 1 minute round a spellcaster with even his fastest spell would never, EVER beat out _any_ physical attack no matter how slow the attackers reactions or awkward his weapon - excepting only end-of-round zombie attacks.  And same with missile fire - unless you started a round with arrow nocked and target in sight you would never, EVER beat out a melee attack.

It made combat tedious because melee was *KING -* always.  Missile fire was a poor second (until the Nuclear Arrows of Unearthed Arcana specialization, but I digress...), and spellcasters were whipping boys who lived for the chance of getting just one combat spell off before getting whacked.  The only reason spellcasters didn't die constantly was because of movement.  We had movement reduced drastically so that a spellcaster could maintain a decent distance from the general scrum and at least not be swarmed on the first round or two if he risked casting, leaving just missile fire to deal with.  Movement also came last in the order, and even though casting a spell meant you were allowed zero movement, the DM saw to it that the melee crowd typically had their hands full with significant hand-to-hand.



> I'd still like to try the DMG as written one of these days to see if I could make it work.



I've gone through ADDICT several times and it actually can be whittled down and simplified while preserving the same general results.  Casting in combat is still a gamble but you at least have a fair and reasonable chance.  Weapon Speed Factors are kept as an option yet in their original role - just breaking ties.  I've got it down to a single page: Surprise and Initiative (scroll down to the bottom for the "short form" itself).  I like to think that it is proof that AD&D CAN be improved; that the 1E surprise and initiative systems were pretty crappy, and crappily implemented.  And my Short Form still keeps VERY close to the functionality of the original system.  It simply jettisons all the extraneous crap that it had.

The original system CAN and DOES "work", even though I've never used it (nor been able to use my Short Form either - yet).  But the real question is, "Why would you even want to _try_ using the BTB system?"  It's just so blatantly _awful_ in its construction.  My only desire to ever try using BTB myself is just to be able to brag that I did - ONCE, and that 35 or so years after its publication.


----------



## kitcik (Jan 24, 2012)

Man in the Funny Hat said:


> I've gone through ADDICT several times and it actually can be whittled down and simplified while preserving the same general results. Casting in combat is still a gamble but you at least have a fair and reasonable chance. Weapon Speed Factors are kept as an option yet in their original role - just breaking ties. I've got it down to a single page: Surprise and Initiative (scroll down to the bottom for the "short form" itself). I like to think that it is proof that AD&D CAN be improved; that the 1E surprise and initiative systems were pretty crappy, and crappily implemented. And my Short Form still keeps VERY close to the functionality of the original system. It simply jettisons all the extraneous crap that it had.




I think you've done a good job here, but I don't like the part where casters that lose initiative automatically get their spells off. Since they don't decide on whether to cast a spell until their initiative, this is the case.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Jan 24, 2012)

kitcik said:


> I think you've done a good job here, but I don't like the part where casters that lose initiative automatically get their spells off. Since they don't decide on whether to cast a spell until their initiative, this is the case.



Casters that lose initiative are more likely to be hit by melee, missile or spell and end up unable to cast in that round at all.


----------



## kitcik (Jan 24, 2012)

Man in the Funny Hat said:


> Casters that lose initiative are more likely to be hit by melee, missile or spell and end up unable to cast in that round at all.




OK, so you're saying if they're hit even before they start casting then they cannot cast that round? But they could choose to do something else in their init since they never started casting?

In that case, I like it.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Jan 25, 2012)

kitcik said:


> OK, so you're saying if they're hit even before they start casting then they cannot cast that round? But they could choose to do something else in their init since they never started casting?
> 
> In that case, I like it.



Yep.  The "Short Form" doesn't _quite_ include all the little details but all the stuff above it should fill in some blanks.


----------



## Water Bob (Jan 25, 2012)

Man in the Funny Hat said:


> Actually, it went quite fast as everyone knew it well and weren't trying to game it - but it was indeed _quite_ boring.




I didn't play AD&D this way, but I have played games with similar rules.  One of the editons of the D6 Star Wars game (which I otherwise love) treated movement that way, IIRC.

Move actions were similar to move actions under the d20 rules.  Except, with the Star Wars game, a character got to perform one action--not his entire number of actions for the round--before the focus jumped to the next character.  Around and round the combat took you until everyone was out of actions.

On paper, I liked the idea.  It surely did support a more "simultaneous" move environment.  If a character wanted to move twice his movement and then fire his blaster, other characters got to do A LOT before that blaster went off.  And, for the player, it always seemed as if you were hurrying up to do very little, "OK, it's your turn again!"

"Um, I'm moving...here."

"Right!  Now, on to the Stormtrooper."

I found it logical but boring and not fun.

I was following the book, playing this way, when a player convinced me to allow character to do all of their actions at one time because it was more cinematic...and more fun.

In an earlier game sessions when I was allowing character all actions at once, this player had his character lean around a doorway, fire his blaster, jump to the other side of the portal, then flip off the stormtroopers with "the finger".

It was a hoot, the way he described his action.  It was "fun".  Everybody laughed.  The game was more enjoyable.

When I got hardnosed and made everyone do it "by the book", the player reminded me of that scene, saying, "That type of thing can never happen again under these rules."


----------



## Crothian (Jan 25, 2012)

We do pretty much rules as written but we don't use speed of weapons or factor in weapons verse armor.  It is pretty simple.  If you have an encounter that there could be surprise we roll for surprise.  When surprise is done we roll initiative.  If characters have multiple attacks they get one now and the rest at the end of the round.


----------



## zepherusbane (Jan 25, 2012)

Today I have to say that I think dexterity, weapon speed, and casting time are the most useful tools to get a more realistic response time.  

Back in 1st edition I never ever messed with such however, typically just a 10 sided die was rolled by each character and people went in the order of the flat number.  By the time I started playing 2nd edition, I started using dex bonus to adjust but most of the time nothing else.  

It wasn't until 3/3.5 that I really got serious enough to use some of the other things like weapon speed and casting time.  It only works if your players are on board with it.  If they never think about the time differences between say a short sword and a battle axe, then they won't be happy when they are always last to do their action.  Plus, all those feats that can help you with initiative would never get taken by the group if these things were not incorporated.


----------



## Water Bob (Jan 25, 2012)

zepherusbane said:


> Today I have to say that I think dexterity, weapon speed, and casting time are the most useful tools to get a more realistic response time.
> 
> Back in 1st edition I never ever messed with such however, typically just a 10 sided die was rolled by each character and people went in the order of the flat number. By the time I started playing 2nd edition, I started using dex bonus to adjust but most of the time nothing else.




The reason I think so many people skipped weapon speed factors in 1E and 2E AD&D is that the rule is implemented in a quirky manner.

IIRC (those playing 1E AD&D correct me), the character with the longer weapon always attacked first on the first round of combat, and then on the character's initiative for his side.  Weapon Speed Factors were used to break ties, and when they were used, a smaller weapon could gain extra attacks if its SF was sufficiently smaller than the SF of his opponent.

With 2E AD&D, the Speed Factor rule was simplified a bit in that it was used as a straight modifier to initiative.

In 3E, Speed Factors were thrown out of the game.



The idea behind the rule is to account for size, weight, encumbrance, and the speed at which a character can wield a weapon.  To some extent, it's also about weapon length.  For example, a character wielding a dagger might be able to zip in and jab his pointed edge at the enemy several times as his opponent makes one swing of a big two-handed weapon.  But, the dagger user has got to get in close enough to use his weapon--and that's not easy when your enemy is swinging a long two handed hammer at you.



The CONAN RPG approaches this idea from a different angle.  The rule is simple and easily portable to D&D games.  There's no fuss as there was with the Speed Factors of old.

The rule is this:  *For every size category a weapon is larger than his opponent's weapon, the attacker gets a +1 Parry Defense modifier and the defender must use a -1 Parry Defense modifier.*

For example, let's say one character uses a dagger and his foe uses a two-handed sword.  The two handed sword is two steps bigger per size category than the dagger (The dagger is a Lite weapon.  Then, there's One-Handed weapons, and the next category is Two-Handed weapons).

This means that, when the dagger character defends, he is -2 to his Parry AC.  And, when the two-handed charactger defends, he is +2 to his Parry AC.

Note that in Conan, a character also has the option to Dodge, which is a separate defence AC.  Thus, in the situation just described:  Let's say the dagger user has a Parry AC 14 and Dodge AC 13.  This modifier reduces the Parry AC but not the Dodge AC, thus the character is AC 12 when parrying the two-handed sword and AC 13 when Dodging the same attacke--therefore the dagger user will Dodge the two-handed sword user and not try to parry his big weapon.


----------



## zepherusbane (Jan 26, 2012)

Water Bob said:


> With 2E AD&D, the Speed Factor rule was simplified a bit in that it was used as a straight modifier to initiative.
> 
> In 3E, Speed Factors were thrown out of the game.




Ah, I was typing that up incorrectly.  For some reason I had a brain malfunction, putting the weapon speed as 3rd ed.  Getting so old that the years of playing 2nd ed and 3rd are getting mixed up in my memory (too old I guess, heh).


----------



## pdiddy (Jan 26, 2012)

Water Bob said:


> IIRC (those playing 1E AD&D correct me), the character with the longer weapon always attacked first on the first round of combat, and then on the character's initiative for his side.  Weapon Speed Factors were used to break ties, and when they were used, a smaller weapon could gain extra attacks if its SF was sufficiently smaller than the SF of his opponent.




I believe that 1E weapons speeds were only used to:
1. break initiative ties between combatants using weapons ("Simultaneous Initiative" - pg 66, DMG),
2. if faster weapons get multiple attacks against slower weapons (second paragraph of "Weapon Speed Factor" - pg 66, DMG), and
3. if an attacker that loses initiative can still interrupt a spell being cast ("Other Weapon Factor Determinants" - pgs 66 & 67, DMG).

Longer weapons always attacked first during a charge ("Melee at End of Charge" - pg 66, DMG). If you just close, you pass to the next round as melee is not allowed and go with the usual initiative procedure ("Close to Striking Range" - pg 66, DMG).


----------



## billd91 (Jan 26, 2012)

For 1e AD&D, we pretty much just used strict d6 initiative per side. The side that rolled higher went first, any order within the group was fine and we didn't declare actions first. We didn't do anything with spell casting times, for the most part, unless it took more than 1 round. We followed the alternating rule for multiple attacks - one side then the other. And we used weapon speed factors to determine who went first if both sides rolled the same initiative.

In 2e, we went whole-hearted for the individual d10 roll, modified by weapon speed, casting time, and Dex. We even declared our actions before we rolled. It was slower compiling out the initiative order compared to 3e's cyclical initiative, but anti-caster actions were much easier to perform - a good thing. We didn't bother as much with alternating attacks for iterative attacks and we sometimes toyed with how the casting time actually worked - if you hit the wizard before his rolled initiative without factoring in the casting time, he didn't lose the spell, he just couldn't cast it but if you hit him between his rolled init and the modified init with the casting time, then the spell was actually lost... I'm not sure it was always worth the effort to do that though.


----------



## kitsune9 (Feb 1, 2012)

We did pretty much what Water Bob stated in the OP. We never used modifiers for different armor though. When 2e came out, we did resolve multiple attacks for the figter types in that they got their first swing and at the end of the round, they finished up their other attacks. Don't remember if this was a homerule or from the book.


----------



## the Jester (Feb 1, 2012)

Simplified: 

1. (ONLY AT THE START OF ENCOUNTER) Roll for surprise: Each side rolls 1d6 and is (typically) surprised on a 2 or completely surprised on a 1. If you aren't surprised and your enemy is, you get 1 free round. If you aren't completely surprised and your enemy is, you get 2 free rounds If you're surprised and your enemy is completely surprised, you get 1 free round.

2. Each side rolls 1d6 for initiative. High roll goes first. There are typically no modifiers to this roll.

3. If it is your turn, you do something. Move & attack, attack, move-bow-move (elf only), spell, parley, drink a potion, etc. Minor actions (drawing the potion) are typically handwaved away. (Hey, it's a one-minute round!) Resolve your actions.

4. Next turn.

5. GOTO 2.


----------

