* * * Wizards Community Thread * * * -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Thread : How much of the 1st ed Combat did you use? Started at 05-13-04 10:05 AM by Yorlum Visit at http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=238823 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 1] Author : Yorlum Date : 05-13-04 10:05 AM Thread Title : How much of the 1st ed Combat did you use? I admit it, I didn't use everything presented. Think about it...there was base tables for class/level combos that had 'to hit numbers'. All well and good. Then, there were modifiers for Strength. Not much of a problem there Ditto Magic, +1, +2, etc easy. Now it gets to where I started skipping things... Weapon v AC type modifiers. While I concede the intent of these tables, I admit that I didn't use them much. After all, what armor type is an Ogre? How about a Vrock? Weapon speeds. OK, what exactly was the point here? You rolled initiative [modded by Dex] to see who went first, what good was having a 'faster' weapon in face of that? Just trying to start a conversation related to OOP stuff only, not looking to have another edition war over this. Thanks! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 2] Author : rogueattorney Date : 05-13-04 10:57 AM Weapon v. AC: The overall effect is to make fighters much more versatile in combat that any other character because of their larger amount of proficiencies. They could pick which of their weapons to use in a given circumstance depending on the opponent. Yes, how to determine a monsters AC type is problematic. I always tended to ignore weapon v. AC type against non-armor wearing monsters. Humanoids (goblins, ogres, etc. who were wearing armor) were assumed to have the type of armor given by their standard AC in the MM. Weapon Speed: Weapon Speed only came into effect in three instances. 1. To adjudicate ties on the initiative rolls in hand-to-hand combat. 2. To determine whether the spell went off first or the weapon struck first when a melee opponent attacked a spell caster. 3. In certain cases, in one-on-one battles a much faster weapon would automatically strike before a much slower weapon regardless of initiative rolls. Further - you're wrong about initiative being adjusted by dexterity. Initiative was adjusted by dexterity only with missile-fire. Weapon speed only comes into play with melee. R.A. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 3] Author : Yorlum Date : 05-13-04 11:16 AM Originally posted by rogueattorney Weapon Speed: Weapon Speed only came into effect in three instances. 1. To adjudicate ties on the initiative rolls in hand-to-hand combat. 2. To determine whether the spell went off first or the weapon struck first when a melee opponent attacked a spell caster. 3. In certain cases, in one-on-one battles a much faster weapon would automatically strike before a much slower weapon regardless of initiative rolls. R.A. Thanks for the reply! In response... 1. Adjudicating ties that way seems kinda cumbersome. If 'weapon speed' really is supposed to matter, shouldn't it come before the dice, and leave initiative rolls as the tiebreaker? [Of course to do that would be tantamount to PC's ceding init to any body-weaponed monster that they faced...] 2. Well, yeah. I'll give you that, but that is another example of speed overcoming init rolls. 3. I don't recall this. Can you give me specifics? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 4] Author : James McMurray Date : 05-13-04 11:39 AM We never used the weapon type vs. armor type tables. Too much chart-checking to interfere with combat, without enough of a gain to make it worthwhile to us. Of course, I later went on to play Rolemaster, and the charts there didn't bother me because they provided more realism. We used the weapon speed modifiers for a while, but those too soon became too cumbersome and were dropped on the wayside. Everything was used. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 5] Author : rogueattorney Date : 05-13-04 11:58 AM Originally posted by Yorlum Thanks for the reply! In response... 1. Adjudicating ties that way seems kinda cumbersome. If 'weapon speed' really is supposed to matter, shouldn't it come before the dice, and leave initiative rolls as the tiebreaker? [Of course to do that would be tantamount to PC's ceding init to any body-weaponed monster that they faced...] The thing to remember in 1e, which makes the combat REALLY different from 3e or B/X D&D, is that a combat round represents a whole minute of combat (I don't remember the length of the combat round in 2e). It is entirely abstract. Each roll in melee combat rarely ever represents one single stroke of the sword, but rather a whole minute of dodges, feints, strokes, stabs, and jabs. The hit roll and any damage done represents the overall effectiveness of the attack over the course of the minute. Thus the ability to get off the first attack is rarely the most important factor over the course of the entire minute as to determining overall effectiveness. That's why it's only a tiebreaker. Is it cumbersome? I don't think it's any more cumbersome than using Dexterity as a tie breaker, or re-rolling, or just saying that the attacks occur simultaneously. #2 Well, yeah. I'll give you that, but that is another example of speed overcoming init rolls. Not really. A caster who wins initiative by the roll is still beginning to cast his spell before the attacker gets a chance to attack him. What's being resolved is whether the caster finishes casting his spell before the attacker can strike. #3 I don't recall this. Can you give me specifics? This happens so seldom, I had to look it up, and I had it wrong. In case #1, where weapon speed adjudicates the tie, a bearer of a really fast weapon can end up having multiple attacks against a wielder of a really slow weapon. If there is a difference of 5 between the fast and slow weapon, or if the weapon speed value is half that of the slow weapon, the bearer of the fast weapon gets an additional attack. If there is a difference of 10, then the bearer of the fast weapon gets two additional attacks. This kind of thing usually only happens when a guy with a dagger is attacking a guy with a pole arm, and only then when the initiative rolls tie. R.A. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 6] Author : diaglo Date : 05-13-04 12:06 PM don't forget surprise. or fighters vs. < HD 1 monsters/ 0 lvls or psionic attacks outside of melee attacks yes, we used pretty much what we liked and discarded what we didn't. but not before try all of the options out first over many sessions. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 7] Author : Faraer Date : 05-13-04 01:15 PM By the way, Gary Gygax didn't and doesn't use the weapon speed, weapon vs. armor, or grappling rules either. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 8] Author : Thailfi Date : 05-13-04 02:32 PM At one time or another we used all the above rules. We dropped the weapon vs. AC type because it was a pain in the butt. We still use weapon speeds and we allow dexterity adjustments to all weapon attacks (thieves need all the help they can get and this adjustment tends to hurt magic-users who have their spells spoiled more often, both bring better game balance in our opinion). We definitely dumped the grappling rules as this would make every encounter with a giant deadly no matter level character you had. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 9] Author : Falstaff the Fighter Date : 05-13-04 03:28 PM Currently, I use all of them except Weapons Vs Armor. However, I am soon switching to a simplified version based on B/X. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 10] Author : skathros Date : 05-13-04 04:35 PM Originally posted by James McMurray We never used the weapon type vs. armor type tables. Too much chart-checking to interfere with combat, without enough of a gain to make it worthwhile to us. Of course, I later went on to play Rolemaster, and the charts there didn't bother me because they provided more realism. We used the weapon speed modifiers for a while, but those too soon became too cumbersome and were dropped on the wayside. Everything was used. Same as above (to lazy to type).:) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 11] Author : blackprinceofmuncie Date : 05-13-04 07:14 PM I don't think I've ever used the entire range of combat rules from 1e when I was running 1e. Since I started out with B/X and knew the combat system well, I pretty much kept to the Basic combat procedure throughout my AD&D refereeing. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 12] Author : Demon Lightfoot Date : 05-14-04 02:14 AM [Edit: Nevermind /Emily Latella] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 13] Author : beavis123 Date : 05-15-04 10:13 PM Thread Title : keeping it simple I don't think anyone used those weapon speed or weapon versus armor. The basic rule was keep it simple. Add your pluses and roll the 20 sided die. Check the chart and keep moving on. There is something to say for the simple rule. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 14] Author : diaglo Date : 05-17-04 08:34 AM Thread Title : Re: keeping it simple Originally posted by beavis123 I don't think anyone used those weapon speed or weapon versus armor. anyone? or anyone you played with? we used them. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 15] Author : RobertFisher Date : 05-18-04 06:04 PM When I played OAD&D, we typically didn't use... Weapon speed factors. Weapon v. Armor Type adjustments. Surprise (we played it like Basic) Initiative (we played it like Basic) Multiple attack ordering. (You made all your attacks at the same time.) I think that pretty much covers combat. I've come to really regret never giving the Weapon v. Armor Type adjustments a try. After playing Rolemaster, I don't think they'd be as combersome as we assumed. I only recently realized that the way we played surprise & initiative is basically by-the-book Basic D&D. When we tried to use the multiple attack ordering bit, the extra attacks always ended up being forgotten. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 16] Author : WizO_Catoblepas Date : 05-18-04 11:30 PM I never used the weapons versus armor class or weapon speeds. The weapon speeds just seemed too cumbersome when factored with the order of initiative. As for the weapons versus AC, I guess we just didn't want to add it. It wasn't like it was overly complex to us. It's just that we didn't use it. As for grappling/overbear rules, whenever someone in our party attempted to do this, I basically got up and watched som TV since it always took the DM between 1/2 hour to an hour to figure out all of the adjustments. (at least it seemed that way ...) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 17] Author : pilight Date : 05-19-04 09:39 AM I never played with a group that used weapons vs AC. I played with some that used weapon speeds and some that didn't. I always liked it, although RuneQuest handled the concept better. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 18] Author : Shapedoctor Date : 05-19-04 10:32 AM Thread Title : Re: How much of the 1st ed Combat did you use? Originally posted by Yorlum Weapon v AC type modifiers. While I concede the intent of these tables, I admit that I didn't use them much. After all, what armor type is an Ogre? How about a Vrock? Weapon speeds. OK, what exactly was the point here? You rolled initiative [modded by Dex] to see who went first, what good was having a 'faster' weapon in face of that?Thanks! We didn't have enough time for these in my dimension either. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 19] Author : T. Foster Date : 05-19-04 04:04 PM I ran the first session of my new AD&D campaign last weekend, and we had several combats and I used all the rules that applied -- weapon vs. AC, multi-segment surprise, weapon speed as initiative tie-breaker, movement, closing to melee, and charging, to hit adjustments for poor light and rear/flank attacks, weapon space required when fighting abreast in corridors, missile fire into groups (didn't actually use this but explained how it would work to the player who contemplated doing it), etc. Multiple attack routines and attacks vs. spellcasters didn't come up (these were 1st level characters, after all), and neither did unarmed combat, but if they did I would've handled them by-the-book too (though for unarmed combat I'd have used the more user-friendly UA system in place of the cumbersome DMG system). The only things I didn't handle exactly by the book were morale and evasion/pursuit -- I rolled dice and then based on the die result and my own guesstimation of the circumstances made judgments, rather than actually figuring up exact percentages. The combats were all fast-moving (with 4 players facing like numbers of opponents most combat rounds took a minute or less to adjudicate) and (at least from my perspective) exciting. No miniatures or battle-mat was used (although I did sketch out a couple diagrams on the players' map -- the radius illuminated by a torch, and how far some fleeing goblins made it before being caught). I can't see how using a more 'rules-lite' system would've made things run any smoother, or that we were missing out on any additional detail that would've been provided by a more tactical, rules-heavier system. In the tradition of Goldilocks I found that the by-the-book AD&D combat system fit my needs and desires "just right." -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 20] Author : gleep Date : 05-21-04 07:04 PM We didn't use the weapon vs AC tables for quite a while, preferring to keep things simple. Then one day someone realized that the adjustments were actually based on a very simple principle. The way AC worked was basically each type of armor was an AC number, then that AC plus a shield. Some armors were better at defending against, say, slashing weapons while they were worse against, say, piercing weapons. So we jotted down a chart that was based on types of weapons and armor rathter than individual items. Made weapon selection more interesting, especially at lower levels, where an extra plus made a lot of difference. We also used the weapon speeds... mages that rolled high breathed easier. That was when we were feeling complex, though. When we wanted combat to go quick and dirty we pared things down to minimums so we could get the fighting over with. Hmmm. I seem to remember we got kinda cheesy with the rate of fire of missle weapons, though... :D --gleep -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 21] Author : Sarta Date : 05-21-04 09:57 PM Originally posted by pilight I never played with a group that used weapons vs AC. I played with some that used weapon speeds and some that didn't. I always liked it, although RuneQuest handled the concept better. Amen. Used everything but the wapon type vs. armor type. In my opinion, given the casting times of spells, weapon speeds were essential. If a group uses casting times, but not weapon speeds, spell casters are definitely getting the short end of the stick. Sarta -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 22] Author : Tas Date : 05-22-04 07:54 PM We used the basic hit tables, and all the normal mods. Weapon Speed factors decide ties on initiative. We have never used weapon vs armour modifiers. We definitely use the multiple attacks ordering system, just to be realistic. everyone (assuming they are standing after being attacked) gets their attacks. If you have fighters with multiple attacks they get them too, but one at a time, and not all together. Cheers Tas -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Downloaded from Wizards Community (http://forums.gleemax.com) at 05-10-08 08:20 AM.