Adjudicating Combat In OD&D

[vladtolenkov]

Hey folks, I just posted this on my blog but I wondered what your thoughts were:

The apparent lack of an initiative system in OD&D is something that I've been thinking about recently. This might be obvious stuff to seasoned OD&D players, but my perspective on this has shifted a bit recently. I think I was looking at the game too firmly through the lens of what came later--rather than seeing what may be suggested by the rulebooks themselves. So here’s my thoughts on OD&D and Combat.We can see that various later editions tried to deal with this issue by instituting various solutions such as tracking initiative by Dexterity rating (Holmes) or by rolling a d6 (AD&D, Moldvay). Both of these approaches can be extrapolated from Men & Magic.

However--the whole point of the referee is to adjudicate these kinds of situations! So with that in mind:

First, the referee looks at situational factors like surprise. Does it seem likely that any of the participants are surprised? Is there a chance that the PCs may be alerted in some way? How do we determine this? The referee adjudicates the situation FAIRLY based on situational factors. That is, I think, the default system implied by the OD&D rulebooks.

Second, assuming that combat has been joined--what happens next? Who goes first? Well how fast and skilled are the PCs? (this is where Dex becomes a factor as it indicates in Men & Magic) Are there other factors that need to be accounted for? If the PCs are heavily armored Dwarves using heavy axes fighting a group of Orcs wearing leather armor and armed with lighter short swords and crossbows--might the Orcs gain initiative? Or what if one the players is so quickly decisive that she immediately declares that her PC is charging the Orcs and yelling the ancient battle cry of the Dwarves? Might this PC gain initiative before the Orcs even if the other Dwarves do not?

Other factors such as weapon reach etc. can also be factored in through adjudication.

If it looks like it’s a too close to call--you can always fall back on the d6 as a "tie-breaker" as Holmes suggests.

Other factors such as additional strikes (ripostes etc.) can be adjudicated as well. In this regard I'd use Chainmail as a guideline as to situational factors that might play into this.

The referee or the players makes attack rolls as usual with the DM adjudicating the effectiveness of hits etc. Use d6 or variable damage here as you will. One of the main jobs of the referee here is to make combat vivid and exciting. Don't just drone on about hit points lost--give us some real description of what's happening! D&D combat is very abstract, and it is up to the referee here to make it sing. Season with whatever level of gore you and your players are comfortable with. Bad things happen when people hit each other with sharp pieces of metal!

This approach really comes out of OD&D's wargame roots but it also veers close to what's today called "freeform." The referee has as many tools as they want here. Lots of folks might feel like they're flying without the net of the rules here--to that I say: Welcome to OD&D!

Lots of folks have obviously seen the advantages to this approach which was lost to one degree or another in all later iterations of the game. Indeed, so many people complained about this to TSR that they felt they needed a more solid rules based edition that didn’t leave so much to the referee. Thus Advanced Dungeons and Dragons was born. I love AD&D but there’s something very freeing in all the open spaces of OD&D.

[Deleted]

I take a similar approach as yours. I don't have players roll initiative or surprise unless it isn't clear who has either one.

[Zenopus]

This kind of goes in line with what you are suggesting, but if no one has a clear situational initiative, just ignore "striking order" and have all blows happen during each round. If someone is killed, they still get their "turn" that round before expiring.

Or only check "initiative" when a killing blow is landed or there's a chance a spell is disrupted (if you use such rules).

I think that rolls for initiative can often be an invisible waste of time because the outcome at the end of the round is that each side was damaged and it didn't matter who rolled first for this.

[Deleted]

Actually, the running away from a monster rules (from U&WA pg 12) don't make sense if you're using an initiative roll from later editions.

The party and the monsters each have one of three choices, close to attack, run away and stand still and fire. That's only nine possible outcomes. Two of them (both closing and both fleeing) are easy to resolve. Two of them (monster charge + PCs flee and PCs charge and monsters flee) is resolved by comparing movement rates and using the rules from U&WA pg 12). The other five situations might need a die roll to determine if the side that is standing and shooting will get it's shot off before the other side can charge or shoot itself. Even then it might not matter since if you start within 20 feet of each other (or 30 feet depending on which rule you're using), melee starts automatically so there isn't any possibility of running.

The weapon length based hit priority chart in Chainmail can be used to determine who strikes first in melee. [Although, I don't really agree that lighter weapons should have multiple attacks against longer ones]. The Judges Guild Ready Ref sheets (page 5 IIRC) include a hit priority chart that adds spells and scrolls and adjusts for Dex and encumbrance [another thing I don't particularly agree with]. No die rolling required.

[geoffrey]

Vladtolenkov, what you describe in your opening post is basically how I do it, though I probably lean more heavily on dexterity scores than you are describing. Simultaneous initiative, DM fiat, judgment calls, common sense, etc... All these things feel better to me than an initiative roll.

[aldarron]

Mar 8, 2013 13:22:10 GMT -6 @hedgehobbit said:

Actually, the running away from a monster rules (from U&WA pg 12) don't make sense if you're using an initiative roll from later editions.

The party and the monsters each have one of three choices, close to attack, run away and stand still and fire. That's only nine possible outcomes. Two of them (both closing and both fleeing) are easy to resolve. Two of them (monster charge + PCs flee and PCs charge and monsters flee) is resolved by comparing movement rates and using the rules from U&WA pg 12). The other five situations might need a die roll to determine if the side that is standing and shooting will get it's shot off before the other side can charge or shoot itself. Even then it might not matter since if you start within 20 feet of each other (or 30 feet depending on which rule you're using), melee starts automatically so there isn't any possibility of running.

The weapon length based hit priority chart in Chainmail can be used to determine who strikes first in melee. [Although, I don't really agree that lighter weapons should have multiple attacks against longer ones]. The Judges Guild Ready Ref sheets (page 5 IIRC) include a hit priority chart that adds spells and scrolls and adjusts for Dex and encumbrance [another thing I don't particularly agree with]. No die rolling required.

Well said. Exalt.

[vladtolenkov]

Yeah, after thinking about the brown books for quite a while--I feel like this is the implied system that the books present. Much more open than later editions although it places the burden on the referee to make fair and consistent rulings.

Anybody else use something like this system?

[vladtolenkov]

Just to be clear this is merely my reading of the LBBs right now. I may change my mind next week.

[talysman]

Mar 9, 2013 17:23:05 GMT -6 vladtolenkov said:

Anybody else use something like this system?

If I understand you right, I'm doing something similar.

Surprise always goes first, then hasted combatants go before regular combatants, and both go before slowed combatants (or zombies.) Within each grouping, the longest weapon goes first on the first attack. I only check order of actions when it's important (timing of death blow or possible spell interruptions.)

Beyond that, I used to invert weapon length on 2nd and later attacks (shortest weapon goes first.) Now, I go in Dex/Move order, where order is important, and use weapon length as a tie-breaker.

Instead of consulting the chart in Chainmail, I just go by my best-guess of weapon length to the nearest foot. So, daggers are 1, short swords 2, great swords 6.

I never roll for tie breakers. If two combatants have the same Dex/Move and weapons of the same length, their attacks are simultaneous. So, sometimes, people can kill each other.

[Torreny]

Seems I'm a bit slow to the punch (har-har), but here was my wording of it for the local group of players:

THE ORDER OF COMBAT!

The Order of Combat is decided by common sense and these simple guidelines:

Melee range is within 3". Generally all blows happen simultaneously. If surprised (or taken from behind), victims attack last in the first round. Complete surprise forfeits their attack that round. Ranged weapons strike first if loaded. Pole-arms and spears attack first any enemies that must close distance to melee. Provided the defenders aren't factored so, charging actions go before all other melee. Non-readied weapons always hit last, though swords and daggers are not penalized so. Combat order for spells depends on the result of their activations.

Combatants that 'attack first' do not suffer dying blows from their slain foes.

Easy, simple, clear.

[Deleted]

CHAINMAIL has the order of combat explicitly spelled out, so I suspect Gary thought there was no need to repeat it.

[luc]

And issue 2 of Strategic Review has this in "Commonly Asked Questions about D&D" under Combat:

"Iniative is always checked. Surprise naturally allows first attack in many cases. Iniative thereafter is simply a matter of rolling two dice (assuming that is the number of combatants) with the higher score gaining first attack that round. Dice scores are adjusted for dexterity and so on."

[Stormcrow]

The thing about that FAQ is that it's not clear if it's meant to be taken as errata or as Gary's offhand thoughts on how you might handle the situation, since you obviously don't realize that you can just make any system you like.

So far as I know it's the only time Gary ever "clarified" D&D rules in print outside of a rule book.

[Falconer]

Apr 27, 2013 10:56:04 GMT -6 Stormcrow said:

Gary's offhand thoughts on how you might handle the situation

That seems to me the spirit in which all the OD&D “rules” are offered.

[Keith]

I have not thought this through, and I guess I'll need to before I run my first true LBB game this summer.

I lean toward surprise, ranged weapons, then dexterity.

But how do you find dexterity of monsters, especially weird monsters like black puddings, ochre jellies, and strawberry tarts?

I like weird monsters and aberrations ... bwa ha ha

Thanks!
Keith

[talysman]

I just use the Move score for Dex of monsters.

[Deleted]

Jun 1, 2013 21:21:16 GMT -6 talysman said:

I just use the Move score for Dex of monsters.

How do you derive a DEX score from the movement rates? It's not a straightforward 1-1 mapping, since there are only 4 standard movement rates.

[Finarvyn]

Jun 2, 2013 5:35:38 GMT -6 @aspiringlich said:

Jun 1, 2013 21:21:16 GMT -6 talysman said:

I just use the Move score for Dex of monsters.

How do you derive a DEX score from the movement rates? It's not a straightforward 1-1 mapping, since there are only 4 standard movement rates.

That's pretty much what I do, but I don't call it a DEX score. Basically, I "wing it" by assuming that whichever creatures can move the fastest each turn must be able to act first.

In other words, assuming that creatures in the 6"-12" range are typical of humanoids...
Dwarves move 6"; Dwarves are "slow" compared to average.
Orcs move 9"; Orcs are "average" or probably DEX 9-12 range.
Elves move 12"; Elves are "fast" compared to average.

...then the question becomes "are they faster than Dwarves?" or "faster than orcs?" or "faster than elves?"

Skeletons and zombies move 6" so elves go before they do, and probably most characters as well. Rocs move 6"/48" so on the ground they are roughly as slow as a zombie but swooping in the air they would get first strike.

Certainly not an exact science, but probably pretty solid overall.

[Zenopus]

The Holmes rule for determining monster DEX: "If the Dungeon Master does not know the dexterity of an attacking monster he rolls it on the spot".

So the DM can pick the DEX or roll it randomly (3d6).

Gygax gave some monster dexterities in B2. He tended to use the same DEX for each type of monster.
Typical Monster Dexterities

I do like using movement though because it saves having to come up and list a separate stat for every monster.

[Keith]

Jun 2, 2013 8:36:20 GMT -6 Zenopus said:

The Holmes rule for determining monster DEX: "If the Dungeon Master does not know the dexterity of an attacking monster he rolls it on the spot".

So the DM can pick the DEX or roll it randomly (3d6).

Gygax gave some monster dexterities in B2. He tended to use the same DEX for each type of monster.
Typical Monster Dexterities

I do like using movement though because it saves having to come up and list a separate stat for every monster.

Monster dexterities would be preferable, but movement seems easier, more playable.

I hate, hate, hate cross-referencing and cross-walking pages in rulebooks ... having movement rate right there would be the deciding factor for me (I'm very proud of being lazy).

[talysman]

Jun 2, 2013 5:35:38 GMT -6 @aspiringlich said:

Jun 1, 2013 21:21:16 GMT -6 talysman said:

I just use the Move score for Dex of monsters.

How do you derive a DEX score from the movement rates? It's not a straightforward 1-1 mapping, since there are only 4 standard movement rates.

Not a 1:1 mapping? Who cares? It's a game, and this is a hack. I'd rather have an immediate answer without writing anything extra down than worry about what the Dex of each individual monster should be.

There are only four standard movement rates (well, three, for me) based on armor worn or not worn. For beasts, there are lots of non-standard movement rates. The kind of people who wear armor usually have Dex scores, so I use those, or maybe just a flat Dex 10 for humanoids. Beasts and monsters that don't wear armor get Dex = Move. The Move rates may skip some numbers, but who really cares if this trick won't produce monsters with Dex 7 or Dex 11 or Dex 13? Your Move 15 jaguar will strike first except against very high Dex characters, your Move 3 turtle will strike last against practically everyone. That's enough variation for me.

Incidentally, I'd treat oozes and puddings, as a class, differently. They always go last, unless they surprise you. Not a big deal, since they are nasty anyways. The proper response to an ooze is to run and attack from a distance, not judge whether you will be able to strike first.

[Deleted]

Jun 2, 2013 11:14:27 GMT -6 talysman said:

Jun 2, 2013 5:35:38 GMT -6 @aspiringlich said:

How do you derive a DEX score from the movement rates? It's not a straightforward 1-1 mapping, since there are only 4 standard movement rates.

Not a 1:1 mapping? Who cares? It's a game, and this is a hack. I'd rather have an immediate answer without writing anything extra down than worry about what the Dex of each individual monster should be.

It wasn't a rhetorical question. I was simply interested in how you figure it.

[talysman]

Jun 2, 2013 14:43:27 GMT -6 @aspiringlich said:

Jun 2, 2013 11:14:27 GMT -6 talysman said:

Not a 1:1 mapping? Who cares? It's a game, and this is a hack. I'd rather have an immediate answer without writing anything extra down than worry about what the Dex of each individual monster should be.

It wasn't a rhetorical question. I was simply interested in how you figure it.

I know. And the "Who cares?" is rhetorical. I'm not attacking you, just point out I really don't think it's worth bothering about. I use Move for a monster's Dex, just because it's easy.

[waysoftheearth]

Apr 27, 2013 10:56:04 GMT -6 Stormcrow said:

The thing about that FAQ is that it's not clear if it's meant to be taken as errata or as Gary's offhand thoughts on how you might handle the situation

It seems to be pretty clearly stated in the opening paragraph:

The space limitations of D&D (and it was difficult to get all we managed to in three booklets!) forced us to gloss over certain areas ... so we herewith offer a few more details in those areas where questions most frequently occur.

The article goes on to explain how initiative should be thrown with a six-sided die per combatant:

Iniative thereafter is simply a matter of rolling two dice (assuming that is the number of combatants) with the higher score gaining first attack that round. Dice scores are adjusted for dexterity and so on.

And gives an example whereby high and low dexterity adjust these dice by +1 and -1:

Combat Example:
10 ORCS surprise a lone Hero wandering lost in the dungeons, but the die check reveals they are 30' distant at the time of surprise, so they use their iniative to close to melee distance. Iniative is now checked. The Hero scores a 3, plus 1 for his high dexterity, so it is counted 4. The Orcs score 6, and even a minus 1 for their lack of dexterity (optional) still allows them first attack.

The only detail that is omitted is exactly what dexterity scores are considered "high" and "low". However, a score of 15 or more qualifies for a +1 adjustment to a six-sided die elsewhere, and a score of 6 or less qualifies for a -1 adjustment to a six-sided die elsewhere. So these seem like sensible criteria to use.

[coffee]

Jun 6, 2013 7:01:04 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

The only detail that is omitted is exactly what dexterity scores are considered "high" and "low". However, a score of 15 or more qualifies for a +1 adjustment to a six-sided die elsewhere, and a score of 6 or less qualifies for a -1 adjustment to a six-sided die elsewhere. So these seem like sensible criteria to use.

This might help, from Men & Magic, p. 11:

(Low score is 3 - 8; Average is 9 - 12; High is 13 - 18)

[Stormcrow]

Crap. The board ate my post. It was excellent and completely blew your arguments out of the water. Just cede the victory to me now.

[Porphyre]

I use 1d6. Characters with a 15+ dexterity score get a +1. The side with the bettes movement rate gets +1; +2 if his Mov. is twice as high as his opponent.

[waysoftheearth]

Jun 6, 2013 8:21:26 GMT -6 coffee said:

This might help, from Men & Magic, p. 11:

(Low score is 3 - 8; Average is 9 - 12; High is 13 - 18)

I wrote a post discussing ability score adjustments recently here.