Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2012 17:27:14 GMT -8
Wow! I was reading thru the AD&D Players Handbook (1983 edition) earlier and shocked by some of what I was reading!! - 1 minute combat rounds (I kinda remember this, but it's one of those abstractions that don't mean much, so it doesn't bother me) - Initiative rolls every round (but only when it might make a difference? Did I read that right) - Weapon Proficiencies (limited quantity by class and level and SERIOUS penalties) - Weapon Speeds (not sure how these worked, didn't read all of it) - Variable Damage depending on targets AC (THIS amazes me, but it's sort of an impromptu armor soak) - Variable damage depending on targets size (this makes a little sense, but seems like the attacker is being triple taxed on large monsters = they have more hit points, usually better AC and ALSO lowered potential damage... I think there is a plus 1 for attacking a large critter, but then the damage die could be half and the plus for size is most likely smaller than the minus to-hit on the weapon...?) I don’t remember ANY of that stuff from when I played back in high school!!! But looking at the 1984 Character Sheet shows that all of this was a solid part of the game… I guess we just never used those rules…?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2012 0:47:33 GMT -8
Wasn't it that a "turn" was 1 minute and the combat "round" 6 or 10 seconds? Maybe I am remembering 2nd edition.
I recall the initiative system sucking balls though, since if you were at "normal speed" and the enemy was at "very fast" in order to play first you needed of roll 1 (on the d10) AND the enemy rolling a 10 AND beating him at the rerolls, so that would be a 0.5% chance. If you were a mage, you started casting at the very start of the round and finished the spell at the end of your initiative turn, with a single damaging attack automatically breaking your spell (spells usually had normal speed).
I remember travelling solo with my 12 level mage (it was sooo hard to level a mage, 12 levels of mage were about 16-18 levels of fighter or 18-20 thief) and running across 3 weakling wolves, with a speed of "very fast", so the DM turns to me after looking their stats and says: "Shit, you are probably dead...". It was very unlikely me getting a spell off with 3 wolves attacking my AC of 18 (or something). I was lucky that my only teleport spell, with a speed of "fast" rolled a "1" and became "very fast" and the reroll beat the wolves' initiative roll. So yes, f*&%k the ADnD initiative system...
(If you are wondering why I was walking instead of using teleport, there was a good chance of getting stuck in a wall/tree/hill and instantly dying if you teleported in an unfamiliar location.)
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Jul 22, 2012 2:07:31 GMT -8
Wow! I was reading thru the AD&D Players Handbook (1983 edition) earlier and shocked by some of what I was reading!! - 1 minute combat rounds (I kinda remember this, but it's one of those abstractions that don't mean much, so it doesn't bother me) - Initiative rolls every round (but only when it might make a difference? Did I read that right) - Weapon Proficiencies (limited quantity by class and level and SERIOUS penalties) - Weapon Speeds (not sure how these worked, didn't read all of it) - Variable Damage depending on targets AC (THIS amazes me, but it's sort of an impromptu armor soak) - Variable damage depending on targets size (this makes a little sense, but seems like the attacker is being triple taxed on large monsters = they have more hit points, usually better AC and ALSO lowered potential damage... I think there is a plus 1 for attacking a large critter, but then the damage die could be half and the plus for size is most likely smaller than the minus to-hit on the weapon...?) I donÂ’t remember ANY of that stuff from when I played back in high school!!! But looking at the 1984 Character Sheet shows that all of this was a solid part of the gameÂ… I guess we just never used those rulesÂ…? Just cracked open my old 1st ed PHB and DMG . . . 6 secs = 1 segment 1 min = 1 round 10 min = 1 turn Yep initiative every round, because a round is an abstracted minute long. However, if you got multiple attacks per round then you could dispense with initiative IF your number of attacks were greater then your opponents. Fighters also received a phenomenal number of attacks per round against HD1-1 or less creatures based on class level. This would result in scenes where the fighter types could quite literally wade thru a pack of kobolds laying a path corpses as they approached to engage the primary combat monster. Weapon proficiencies yep - it was a good limitation, it made the player focus more on the style or type of character s/he had with respect to combat. They would be more consistent and had weaknesses an antagonistic NPC could exploit . . . Combat monsters and munchkins hated it. From weapon proficiencies we derived non-weapon proficiencies in the dungoneers survival guide, wilderness survival guide and unearthed arcana (don't forget the errata it was riddled with misprints). Every munchkin took 'blind fighting' . . . These later evolved into feats and skills. Weapon speed was added to initiative, the faster a weapon the quicker you strike . . . A rapier may cause less damage than a two handed sword but it's quick and getting that first strike could be pivotal to the whole combat. I don't see variable damage on AC? Except when they introduced plate armour in unearthed arcana . . . And yes this was an early armour soak system. Shields only counted for one flank and only a certain number of attackers depending on size. (nb my PHB printing is 1980 so there might be some differences) Hmmm . . . I can see attacker/defender advantage against larger creatures (especially for gnomes and dwarves and halflings). Larger creatures were easier to hit and smaller critters were harder to hit . . . As to damage it depends on the weapon: a halberd causes more damage to a larger creature while a dagger causes less. Conceptually it was broken, ie AC harder to hit etc . . . But it was exciting and a very simple combat system which could have surprisingly narrative outcomes. There was a plethora of home rules to tweak it to ones preference - armour and shield attrition, critical hits and fumbles etc. Dragon magazine and White Dwarf were replete every month with options. In my old campaign for example we has a rudimentary armour soak based on near misses and armour degradation thru attrition plus one of several systems offered in Dragon for the inclusion of bows of different poundages (a higher poundage bow is harder to pull but sends arrows farther and harder - I only mention that we used one system because over the space of about 6 months several different contributors all realised this and printed several different system tweaks to the same end). The classes were unbalanced in combat but that was because some classes weren't supposed to be combatants . . . They'd contribute but not directly engage, xp would then be shared for contributing to a combat plus xp advancement tables differed for different classes to take this into account. Hidden away in the DMG are several paragraphs on awarding xp bonuses etc to non combatant classes for engaging in specialist non combatant activities eg thieves (not rogues) got extra xp for acquiring gold . . .
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Jul 22, 2012 2:16:06 GMT -8
I remember travelling solo with my 12 level mage (it was sooo hard to level a mage, 12 levels of mage were about 16-18 levels of fighter or 18-20 thief) and running across 3 weakling wolves, with a speed of "very fast", so the DM turns to me after looking their stats and says: "Shit, you are probably dead...". It was very unlikely me getting a spell off with 3 wolves attacking my AC of 18 (or something). I was lucky that my only teleport spell, with a speed of "fast" rolled a "1" and became "very fast" and the reroll beat the wolves' initiative roll. So yes, f*&%k the ADnD initiative system... Lol . . . However that 'fuck me' moment has proved memorable and it appears it was very valuable lesson in not travelling alone. If nothing else AD&D absolutely punished the solo adventurer . . . In the situation you mention I think I would have tagged along with a merchant caravan or something so at least I could sleep securely at night. The only class really built for travelling outdoors alone was the ranger and that was less ability to engage in combat and more ability to see danger coming and getting the fuck outta its way asap.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2012 8:12:08 GMT -8
@taronicos AC of 18 is definitely not AD&D 1e - that version still used THAC0, so it was a descending AC = lower is better KainguruI think I mis-spoke about variable damage per AC... I meant variable To-Hit per AC to create an "armor soak"... I was loooking at the battle axe that had like a +2 vs AC 10 (no armor) and a -3 vs AC 2 (plate with shield) = different armors are better vs different weapons I can't say I know Moldvay Basic inside & out, but I'm pretty familiar with it and I didn't realize hw significantly more complicated AD&D was... The games I remember playing back in 8th and 9th grade (1984ish) seemed so much more like Basic, but I know we were using the AD&D books. This all makes me REALLY want to run a "by the book" 1e campaign!
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Jul 22, 2012 9:18:36 GMT -8
I think I mis-spoke about variable damage per AC... I meant variable To-Hit per AC to create an "armor soak"... I was loooking at the battle axe that had like a +2 vs AC 10 (no armor) and a -3 vs AC 2 (plate with shield) = different armors are better vs different weapons This all makes me REALLY want to run a "by the book" 1e campaign! Yeah it made the approach leading up to combat more tactical, weapon and spell selection, group maneuvers etc . . . thus the thief or ranger would become invaluable in gathering intelligence before engaging the enemy. Once combat started in could be very quick with easy encounters (ie kobolds and a 10th level fighter) and hellishly long and intense for major ones conflicts. Plus magic spells used creatively could really swing a combat and totally screw munchkins/meta gamers in the most unexpected of ways eg: munchkin Paladin meta gamer (you'll know who you are if you're reading this ) confronted by a hoard of zombie hobgoblins (actually the animated dead from the his first assault on the big bad) . . . looks at me and says "easy I've automatic initiative this'll be a cakewalk cause I'm an amaaazing badass killer Paladin" except they rolled for initiative and got it and he was badly beaten for several rounds . . . I can still remember him screaming "but zombies always attack last, they don't get initiative" until I pointed to the big bad and simply said "he's used a haste spell on them" . . . The other player fared much better because he surveyed the combat area first, made a guess as to the defenders probable tactics and prepared his character accordingly. I totally agree that it's very tempting to play a 1st ed AD&D game by the book . . . because once you tease out the rulings they're not that bad. Many oddities were actually typos with errata being printed in Dragon magazine regularly. eg Tappy mentioned back in season 6 that a high level fighter could jump off a cliff and survive . . . that was a mistake in the printing the dice were supposed to double and become cumulative for every 10ft you fell ie 1 die at 10ft the 2 die at 20ft PLUS the 1 die at 10ft for a total of 3 dice damage at 20ft . . . this could kill real quick. There were also rules for coup de grace in certain circumstances thus negating the hitpoint attrition complaint where hitpoints are misrepresented as actually being HITpoints rather than the PHB/DMG stated abstraction of luck, divine intervention, dodging, parrying, experience etc To really throw the bitch in the mangle alignment is also not as most people remember it - there were 10 alignments not nine there was True Neutral (concerned with the balance) and Neutral (as in I don't give a fuck . . . so WOTC didn't create unaligned after hours of soul searching for 4th ed they simply lifted it from 1st ed). An example of this can be found in The Village of Hommlet . . . so as to not give spoilers I'll just say that there is one NPC whose description reads "because of their low intelligence they don't have an alignment thus being Neutral" - or 'unaligned'. As to the other nine alignments they were explicitly Ethics (Chaos/Law) and Morality (Good/Evil) . . . an immoral personal may still behave ethically (Lawful Evil) just as a moral person may behave unethically (Chaotic Good) . . .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2012 14:31:08 GMT -8
Lol . . . However that 'fuck me' moment has proved memorable and it appears it was very valuable lesson in not travelling alone. If nothing else AD&D absolutely punished the solo adventurer . . . In the situation you mention I think I would have tagged along with a merchant caravan or something so at least I could sleep securely at night. The only class really built for travelling outdoors alone was the ranger and that was less ability to engage in combat and more ability to see danger coming and getting the fuck outta its way asap. Haha indeed, I was young then and I learned my lesson... I would go to great lengths after that not to travel solo, even finding someone who had visited the area before and using ESP (mind-reading) to get a mental picture of the destination, sometimes I even paid them to let me. @taronicos AC of 18 is definitely not AD&D 1e - that version still used THAC0, so it was a descending AC = lower is better Yes I know my AC was abyssmal, (in 3e terms I would have an AC of 12) 20 AC was the worst you could get. As a mage with 10-12 dex and no armor (or bracers) that's about as much as I got, maybe a bit less than 18, but not much, my only real defense was stoneskin that automatically blocked attacks regardless of AC, if it was up.
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on Jul 24, 2012 0:03:55 GMT -8
Not in 1e, it wasn't. AC started at 10 and went down from there.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Jul 24, 2012 0:22:21 GMT -8
Not in 1e, it wasn't. AC started at 10 and went down from there. Yep that's right
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2012 23:53:40 GMT -8
Indeed you are correct, I was misremebering. It was AC that started from 10 and THAC0 from 20, not the other way around. Can't say I bothered much about AC and THAC0, I almost always played the wizard, even at 11 years old at my first rpg experience someone just went "Here have the 10 level wizard that stopped showing up at our sessions... aaand here is his spellbook.". By the way, not being a native english speaker, I couldn't even read english properly back then, but destroying orcish villages with cloud-kills and lightning bolts was a great motivation to learn .
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Jul 25, 2012 2:26:53 GMT -8
Ahhhh the 1st ed Magic User . . . memories . Weaker than chicken little at the start but a god damn WMD by the time you got to 8th or 9th level . . . Especially if you had a good Intelligence score and a plentiful supply of scrolls potions and/or wands/rods/staves
|
|