AD&D 1st Edition Weapon factor and Initiative Question

[xerxez]

My friends and I began playing AD&D in Jr. High. We also played the various Basic versions and I will admit that I, for one, learned to GM using Basic.

That said, there were many combat rules in the 1st edition books we simply omitted from our games. We seldom used miniatures then and it all boiled down to AC, hit tables, damage and hit points.

Chainmail was a legend of the past to us at the time and none of us had ever even held a copy in our hands, let alone played it.

Initiative was always handled as a simple d6 vs. d6 rule, factoring in surprise. We had a simple missiles/magic/melee order of combat rule. There was an odd battle on occasion where players needed individual d6 initiative rolls instead of a party roll but not generally.

Recently, an old gaming buddy, who is still a good friend and gaming table mate to this day, shared what seems a much better initiative system, especially now that miniatures are a big part of our games. We spoke briefly and I'm still mulling over the ins and outs and seeking opinion or knowledge.

Basically, the combatant's weapon factor is added to a d10 roll. All combatants dice individually and the lower your numbers the better, because attack order does go from lowest to highest. Higher factored weapons typically deal more damage but slow down the wielder. Missiles are considered first off after being prepared and are simultaneous. Spell casters who have prepared spells will release them on the appropriate segment of the round given in the spell descriptions. Monsters with non weapon based attacks make a straight d10 roll, and my buddy mentioned something about modifiers based on creature size.

As a DM prefers, the d10 initiative roll can be made before every round of combat or once at a battle's commencement and then follow the same order in successive rounds.

Anyone else do it this way? It seems plausible and very orderly, without too much complication.

[cadriel]

That sounds like the initiative system from second edition AD&D to me, and is how I ran for a few years in the '90s (which was high school for me). It works, although to be entirely honest I think the weapon speeds are entirely wrong-headed. In actual combat, someone with a dagger will almost never get the first strike when facing someone with a two-handed sword, because he has to close in the entire length of that sword to strike. I prefer almost the opposite, with weapon length taking priority over imagined speeds. (It doesn't help that D&D and AD&D are entirely wrong on weapon weights; almost no non-ceremonial weapons weigh more than 4 lbs, because of the problems of swinging them over time. Combatants spend more time positioning themselves than swinging weapons.)

Having player characters add weapon speed but monsters not is a disadvantage to the PCs generally. The system works best where everyone is using weapons and/or spells.

[xerxez]

Cadriel, thanks. I never played 2E. I do like the way this mechanic sounds and plan to try it out but yes, I mentioned to my friend that it seemed weaponless foes had a distinct initiative advantage that might prove deadly. You make an interesting point about weapon length, although having held a few two handed swords at med fair I marvel at the strength and skill of any warrior of the past who could wield it with any real speed. I'm not a weakling either but if I were put in such a situation I'd prefer a long sword, short sword or scimitar!

I don't hunt realism in my combat systems except where it gives the players the feeling that their individual dexterity and their weapon choice matter--kind of flavoring. If you as a party aren't grouped for initiative under a single d6 roll but feel like your personal abilities and chosen weapon proficiencies make a difference in melee situations, that may be adding a sliver of complexity that is worth it for the overall vibe.

[Deleted]

Yeah, that sounds like the optional individual initiative method from AD&D 2E. In 2E the individual initiative is modified by creature size (medium +3, large +6, etc.) if they are attacking with natural weapons, otherwise you use weapon speeds.

[xerxez]

Thanks ptingler! I will try and find a copy of 2E.

[Falconer]

Around when I first started playing 1e (c. 2001), there was a well-known and oft-repeated saying by Gary Gygax to the effect that the three things in AD&D that he never used and shouldn’t ever have put in were: Weapon Speeds, Weapons vs. Armor, and Psionics. A new DM, I gratefully took this as gospel, and haven’t ever felt the urge to apostatize.

[xerxez]

Falconer, I appreciate you saying that, had never heard that. So often I change the formula to try something new and always end up changing back. It's nice to have this place and experienced gamers with whom to discuss. And as always, thank you for this forum, sir!

[Falconer]

All thanks belong to Finarvyn.

[Stormcrow]

Jun 16, 2014 12:42:45 GMT -6 Falconer said:

Around when I first started playing 1e (c. 2001), there was a well-known and oft-repeated saying by Gary Gygax to the effect that the three things in AD&D that he never used and shouldn’t ever have put in were: Weapon Speeds, Weapons vs. Armor, and Psionics.

He also stated publicly that he didn't know what he was thinking when he added the unarmed combat rules.

These are all examples of Gary writing something very different from the way he actually played, because he really believed in winging it. He published rules because you can't sell "winging it."

[Falconer]

Oh yes. I was relieved to discover (thanks, again, to conventional wisdom) Jeff Grubb’s simple “Weaponless Combat System I,” as published on p. 106 of Unearthed Arcana. Internalizing it as a general guideline of how grappling, etc., might work, and what its limits should be, I wing it based on the actual situation (which is always unique) (and usually involves one PC trying to subdue another, LOL!).

[cadriel]

Jun 17, 2014 9:49:01 GMT -6 Stormcrow said:

These are all examples of Gary writing something very different from the way he actually played, because he really believed in winging it. He published rules because you can't sell "winging it."

I often wonder if you could have. I mean, Holmes Basic was 48 pages and if you added 16 pages you could fit much – perhaps most – of the material that was dropped from OD&D. Boot Hill was 34 pages, Metamorphosis Alpha 32 pages, Gamma World 56 pages, Tunnels & Trolls 41 pages. OD&D itself was 112 digest-sized pages that would've been 56 if laid out like Holmes.

The drive to systematize and clarify everything was driven, in my opinion, by the youth of the players. Wargamers had been mostly college-aged or older and played in large, loose groupings; roleplayers were being recruited around 12 and playing through high school with small cohorts of friends.

[Falconer]

Honestly I think the main drive, first and foremost, was Gary’s personal drive to write, to tinker, to innovate. Clearly, at several points in his life, he published first and playtested later, so, often it was only in hindsight that this-or-that was deemed by him to have been a bad idea.

[xerxez]

I love hearing this stuff, its all news to me. I never used three quarters of the information or tables in the DM's guide but loved reading it. I've been trying to incorporate some of it... for example the NPC personality generation tables--I figure why not? Might challenge me as a DM to make those rolls and maybe improvise an NPC I otherwise never would have thought to try.

I would ask posters what else they scrapped from the books or changed?

For decades I believed the natural 20 crit/double damage was from the book! We used fumble rolls and crits as a routine practice. I have never read of them in the Ist edition but they are custom at our games.

[Falconer]

This thread should give you a pretty good idea of what many people do.

My post is the third one down.

[xerxez]

I like them Falconer. I like the first poster too and will read this entire thread when I can. I cannot countenance what he said about dropping the subclasses or monk, though! Have you ever actually used Psionics?

[Falconer]

I haven’t, no. Other than mind flayers attacking the PCs with a simple psionic blast (mind blast).