That's about how things went if you walked into a straight on fight. 1e D&D: Make allies, set traps, lure enemies out, scout ahead and plan ahead. Win by RPing your party into an advantageous situation.
Yeah, I caught that in the beginning.I just wanted to emphasize to the younger players that the rules in the old days was nebulous at best and part of the novelty of attending a new game was that not only did the campaign or adventure change but that there was a tectonic shift on how the game was played depending on how the DM choose to piece the rules together,rules lawyering simply was not possible in those days nor was it really part of our culture.What many young people fail to realize is that DnD didn't appear in a vacume,the 70's (when I was in college) was a truly special and creative time.You would go to the drive in and catch a Bakshi double feature of the animated Lord of the Rings and Wizards or catch a Yes concert in the park then go home put tangerine dream on the turn table ,turn the black lights on for your posters and play Expedition to the Barrier Peaks,The art,music and literary culture was free wheeling and fun,but there was an innocence to it that's been lost.
Nice video, I am currently reading the adnd 1st,ed rules and trying to understand it to start off a small campaign, I have no background whatsoever in pen and paper role playing games so this is very helpful for me... The first edition of adnd has something about it that the later and current editions just don't have to spark the same level of interest for me in them... Hope to see more vids soon, really appreciate it.
My friend , No one ,and I mean NO-one ,played AD&D by the book back in the day,I attended gen con 1981-83 and even the folks running the games didn't run them like this.The "rule" books were just notes on his thoughs regarding his experiences running the game up to that point.When we were waiting for the first DM's guide to be released we just used combat tables cut from dragon magazine articles ,greyhawk little book and the arduin grimoires critical hit tables.I don't think folks who started playing in the last few decades really understand how free wheeling and liberating those days were.We celebrated our liberation from the "game board",now the board in integral to playing.sad.....
I know where you're coming from and I agree. I was there (not at Gen Con but playing D&D/AD&D) in early 1980's. This is an example of "as close to by the book as I can get," (and, upon further analysis there are some minor errors here, but that's another story). I state early on in this video: "the idea of true BtB AD&D combat/initiative is ludicrous." Back in the day I winged a lot of combat procedure, especially concerning, who's positioned where, initiative, order of events and "what's possible in a one-minute combat round." Still, I think this was an interesting experiment to attempt combat as presented in the DMG and I've actually adopted a few of the "commonly overlooked" practices suggested in therein. I use miniatures here in this video because 1) this is a solo video and i need something visual 2) the DMG suggests using them (although explicitly stated as optional). Back in the day we only used miniatures for marching order and the occasional visual aid in important combats. I didn't use a battlemat then and I hardly use one now. I've had this exact discussion on Dragonsfoot recently (regarding this video). Nevertheless, there are some groups out there currently running AD&D who use battlemats this way (I've played, not DM'ed, a few times in these groups)...
Hi. I'm holding all comments about "the splint is AC 4" because, yes, I'm fully aware I made that error and it's already been pointed out and I addressed it up here in the description. Thanks! :)
Another viewer pointed out the error (and I can't seem to find the comment) that Ursla's opportunity to attack in round 3 was skipped. She should have had an attack after the Minotaur at the end of round 3 (according to initiative). This is true. My apologies. This is due to human error on my part (and not having live players to step up and say, "hey did you miss my turn"). This video was recorded on the fly and unscripted (like real gaming). In practice mistakes like this do happen from time to time and a good DM will listen to their player's protests and amend things on the spot (or apologize later, if the mistake is not brought up in game) or make a ruling and sort things out afterward. Many errors like these go unnoticed in real face-to-face games (where the proceedings are not recorded and scrutinized). Thanks to the viewer who pointed this out. The error has been noted in the video description.
Wanted to encourage you to do more of these. It's a help for old dudes like myself who a a little rusty with the 1st gen rules as well ! Thanks for the video!
3 low level characters vs a minotaur... only one way that was going to end. Might I suggest tge three characters face of vs an orc patrol (5 orcs or so); this way you could show off speed factor, weapon lengths, etc. There were some obvious errors and one or two basic mistakes, but I found it to be one of the better vids out there.
Great video man! I do a simplified version of combat in AD&D (or simplified as in closer to the osric procedure) but I was always wanting to see videos on the subject. There's a lot of content on current editions in youtube land but not much AD&D love. Hope to see more from ya!
Thanks! I also run AD&D much simpler in my current campaign. I'm currently working on my next campaign which will be using Original "Little Brown Books" D&D - talk about scaling back the rules and crunch!
Great video! I'm gearing up to run a campaign of Rules Cyclopedia soon however I grew up on 3rd edition and have little experience with AD&D outside of the Baldur's Gate videogames lol. I like how you broke down combat step by step. Any chance of doing another video where the dreaded spellcaster-in-melee occurs? I own the AD&D 1st edition reprints however some things are kinda hazy from just reading it lol.
Great breakdown of the nebulous AD&D combat system lol. Nice video and I hope to see more from you in the future! Just doing a search on TH-cam, there aren't very many AD&D 1st edition videos. If you're looking for any video ideas, a character creation video or more DM-type videos would be great. The comments about using a battle mat and mini's would be good to address in a DM video as AD&D seems to be more story-focused so these elements may not be needed or even desired by certain groups.
Hey is it possible that you could make a more in-depth video on combat in AD&D 1E Because my DM and our group are confused on rules (Mostly on during which segments melee combat goes, spells, missiles, etc and how rolling initiative die plays into it) Thank you for the video
I invite you to check out this blog. It does a great job of explaining how AD&D initiative works/does not work as written: home.earthlink.net/~duanevp/dnd/initiative.htm
Mass combat isn't really used in melee like this more during warfare when firing a catapult or when there are tons of people and it's hard to see, like during a night raid on your camp. More often then not you can easily identify your combatant.
This is true for melee weapon attacks, but in the case of missile attacks targeting is always random when firing into a existing melee. DMG pg 64: "...discharge of missiles into on existing melee is easily handled. It is permissible, of course, and the results might not be too incompatible with the desires of the discharging party. Assign probabilities to each participant in the melee or target group according to sheer numbers..."
I have one remark. Ursla uses the sling in the first round. She is ofcourse aiming for the monster but has a chance to hit Crang. But her dex should not be added to that chance, her dex should be subtracted because the higher the dex the lesser the chance you hit a partner.
That would be a good ruling. just and fair. But not shown in the rules as far as I can see. See page 64 in the 1979 DMG under the heading "Dexterity Penalty And Bonus Considerations" "The Dexterity Attacking Adjustment is for missile firing considerations when initiative is considered. It adjusts the initiative die roll for the concerned individual only. Thus, it may well allow the concerned individual to discharge a missile prior to the opponent‘s attack even though the opponent has gained the initiative otherwise or vice versa. More important, this factor also gives the individual a “to hit” penalty or bonus when discharging a missile at an opponent." Cheers
I bought the PDFs for the reprinted versions of AD&D 1e, and I've been reading the DMG for a while. I'm kinda getting how everything works, and it is very interesting, though kinda hard to remember all the detains. The ADDICT file helps a lot. Still I'd like to know if people actually used rules like speed factors and AC adjustmens. Although I enjoy the idea of having more things to be aware of when choosing your weapon besides damage, I feel those rules might slow things down a bit.
In my current campaign we use AC adjustments and speed factors (when they are necessary, which is not often). It's the player's duty to have that information written down for each weapon their character carries. Typically, the players roll their own attack rolls, make the adjustment based on the opponent's armor type (not AC, but what the opponent is actually wearing) and then tell me the "best" or lowest AC they hit. So it's roll .... "I hit AC 5" and then I tell them if they had a "telling blow" or not (i.e. if they hit and caused damage).
Old School DM idiscepolidellamanticora.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/addict.pdf This might help. ADDICT (Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Initiative and Combat Table) explains this most convoluted of initiative systems in only twenty pages! Brevity! There is a lot to love about AD&D, but the initiative system is not one of them.
I am aware of and have this document, thanks. ADDICT is a great interpretation of the rules as written. I've been running and playing this game for over 30 years - every DM (without exception) runs combat a little differently. None of them are "wrong." Cheers!
It's the minotaurs "AC type" which is an often forgotten rule about weapons having different to-hit adjustments to different types of armor. AC 10 is when a person is wearing no armor, many don't apply it to monsters who don't wear armor, but it can be adjudicated by preference. Such as a cat having AC 10 type and an elephant have an AC 8 adjustment due to having a tough hide.
Never allowed weapon vs AC adjustment against a natural AC. As I understand the rule, armor "type " is just that; leather, chain mail, plate & shield, etc. Also treating the minotaur's axe as a halberd is all cool, but in the case of tied initiative it would attack last due to it's abysmal weapon speed. All in all a good representation of how deadly AD&D combat. Rule of thumb, in a party of two spell casters and a fighter, if your fighter goes down after a couple of hits from one monster, RUN, YOU FOOLS!
Thanks for your kind and insightful comment. There's some schools of thought out there. I always allow it against Humanoid types (orcs, goblins, etc.) who wear armor and in special cases where the natural armor resembles an armor type (like plates, or tough hide, etc.). The DMG does make an example of "monsters with horny or bony armor" being treated as plate mail (pg 28). One thing that's missing from this video is the social contract aspect of play. It's easy to make oversights, mistakes or unfair over rulings without others there to either accept or challenge your rulings as they come. That's a big part of the game. Players always look after their own interests and will announce that they have an advantage over certain armor types (or whatever the case may be) as well as point out what disadvantages a monster might have against them - and sometimes I'll rule in their favour (even if they are stretching things a bit). The same goes for me - I'm willing to hear out small grievances as they occur. That's not to say the DM doesn't have a responsibility to know the rules...but we are only human, after all. Truth is, I've never sat at a table (as DM or player) and NOT seen "mistakes" happen. They happen and it's part of the experience. Making this video was like working in sort of a vacuum, on the fly, - and so mistakes were made without anyone there to check...I plan to do a redux of this video and it will be more carefully plotted. Cheers!
This is not a good combat example of 1E combat for several reasons. 1) I've NEVER seen, even 1st level characters this lightly armored. 2) Determining the archer's target BEFORE the attack roll completely negates the skill of the archer. i.e., there's NO DIFFERENCE between a 1st level archer and a 20th level archer, which is ridiculous. 1E gives the DM a LOT of leeway in regards to situations like this. Pg. 63 of the DMG states that firing into a melee has its pitfalls, and gives some examples of procedure, with ratios, but it leaves the exact procedure completely up to the DM. Furthermore, it states that larger targets have a greater chance of being hit than smaller ones, as in the video, but I don't see the issue with the math being that difficult. I also, have never seen where firing into melee negates the attack roll. In fact, the very last sentence of that section, Gary writes that he always allows an archer to hit a giant creature engaged with a mansized or smaller opponent. A more reasonable procedure in this case (or any such case for that matter), would be to have the attack roll made FIRST, and if a miss THEN determine potential secondary targets. In addition, assign an attack penalty for firing into the melee (-3 or 4 normally... completely up to the DM.... , but in this particular case perhaps only a -2 because of the minotaur's greater size). This allows more skilled archers to be successful more often, which logically makes sense.
I'm sorry you feel that way, captcorajus. I enjoy your channel, btw. For what it's worth, back in the day I didn't use these rules as shown here - I played combat much simpler and I did allow missile combatants to choose their targets. In the case of missile fire, I did almost exactly what you suggest - only checking to see if a friendly was hit if the archer missed their intended target. It seemed the natural way to do it. But as you say, "1E gives the DM a LOT of leeway in regards to situations like this." However the DMG does indeed dictate that target determination occurs before the to-hit roll. I quote on page 63... "Assign probabilities to each participant in the melee target group according to sheer numbers. In the case of participants of varying size use half value for size "S" , normal value for size "M" , and one and one-half value for size "L" creatures which are not too much larger than man-size. Total the values for each group and ration one over the other...(((Gygax goes on to give various examples)))...The minor difference represents the fact that there will be considerable shifting and maneuvering during combat which will tend to expose opponents to fire on a near equal basis. Such missiles must then be assigned (by situation or by random determination) to target creatures, a "to hit" determination made, and damage assessed for those which to hit." This video is an attempt (a vain one perhaps) at interpreting AD&D combat as written in the 1979 DMG. Needless to say there's a lot of ambiguity here and born from that ambiguity come individual practises that become "the proper way," in each DM's individual campaign. Sometimes these new practises make more sense than the rules as written. More power to ya. Cheers and Take Care
captcorajus I always allow the players an opportunity to take -2 on a ranged attack against enemies in melee with companions to bypass the chance of hitting a party member
Thanks for pointing that out. You're not confused. The MM does say only +2 to damage. I admit fully that I made a mistake by assuming that the bonus went towards the "to hit" and not damage (notice I didn't add a bonus to the Minotaur's damage). I'm glad you brought this up because this sort of thing often happens in real, face-to-face games (i.e. small errors here and there). Most of the time they go unnoticed, but sometimes a player has exceptional knowledge of the rules as written (like having the whole MM memorized, because, as a rule, players are not supposed to reference the MM or DMG during play). As an explanation for the bonus, I touted the Minotaur's "exceptional strength". Now, I made a ruling there (even if it didn't jive with the books) and if a player were to bring this up in game, depending on their approach and tact, I might retract the ruling ("...oh you're right, I don't add 2 to his to hit roll of 18, which is enough to hit, but I do add 2, twice, to the 19 damage...that's 24 damage...") or maybe I wouldn't retract the ruling ("...no as I said, this particular Minotaur has exceptional strength and gets +2 to hit..."). It's the DM's prerogative to make such calls in-game. And it's the player's prerogative to either accept the ruling or move on to another group. Cheers!
Old School DM Hello! If I recall correctly, the older MM only list the monster's Thac0 based on hit dice and does not include any bonus for high strength. With this in mind, if the mino had a +2 to damage then he should at least be allowed a +1 to hit to justify its high strength. However, as it is noted in, I believe all of the older book, the rule are merely a guide and not an absolute. So, it is often the DM's prerogative.
The Minotaur gets two attacks but not two "attack routines," like a high level fighter would. The rules around multiple attack routines (which are different than number of attacks per round) are there to address high-level fighters. There aren't many monsters with true multiple attack routines. There's lots of debate out there about what is actually meant by "multiple attack routines." Some people are inclined to treat monsters with 2 or more "attacks per round" as multiple routines, whereas some (like me) see that as a single routine consisting of two attacks per round... go to dragonsfoot.org/forums for more discussion...
I see. I assume that if the attack is made with different weapons--like a claw/claw/bite routine, then they all go at the same time. But if it's two attacks with a weapon (and you were clearly rolling weapon damage, not bite/head butt damage), then they resolve as a fighter with two attacks.
That's a totally valid assumption. The rules are not clear-cut in these matters and how the situation is handled is up to the DM. Some DMs would handle the two attacks like separate "attack routines" (thus taking the attacks out of initiative and having them go first and last, like you mention in your comment above), some DMs would only allow the Minotaur one attack if it's only using the axe (and not butting with its horns or biting). I treated the Minotaur's 2 attacks as a single routine here (mostly for simplicity sake). In a real-life situation, at a table with other humans, a player might object to my handling and I might consider their input, or I might say: "this is how I handle multiple attacks from monsters" and move on. The DMG (kinda sorta) defines a single attack routine on pg 63. "Note that a routine is the attack or attacks usual to the creature concerned, i.e. a weapon (or weapons) for a character, a claw/claw/bite routine for a bear (with incidental; damage assessed as it occurs - the hug, for example)" The Minotaur's two attacks with a single weapon can be abstracted in various ways: perhaps the radius of the axe swing is so long it has a potential to hit up to two figures, or the Minotaur can come down with his axe on a victim and then twist or pull the axe for a second attack, or maybe the creature is just incredibly/inhumanly/fantastically fast and strong. When you think of the typical claw/claw/bite routine of a lot of monsters out there, it's hard to imagine all of that happening that at once, but it doesn't really - rather, in the chaos of the 1-minute combat round there's an equal probability of any of those natural weapon "hitting" any combatant within striking range. The system is not meant to get too detailed in terms of the "how."
Nice video! I never played old school D&D, but my friends would like to try. But as I read through the book, I wonder how people had fun with this game. I mean, it's so brutal, the odds are always against the players, and they could die so easily. Like in this video. How are the heroes supposed to pass though that minotaur? As the Dungeon Master I'd like to see the players moving on and keep the story going, but when the enemies just cant be beaten.. how do you do that? Can you give me some advices?
Thank you, To address your question: First, this is not an actual campaign or scenario with real players and multiple minds at play. In a real campaign, the heroes may have made different choices (they may have retreated and returned with henchmen, for example). Statistically, there was a good chance (but not a great chance) that the Heroes could defeat this minotaur, however the dice were simply not with them and their tactics were not the best. There's a long tradition in AD&D of example combat "not going so well" for the heroes... ...Second, there is a philosophy in old-school D&D that (in my experience) does not always sit well with many younger people. If you grew up with video games that are 1) linear in terms of narration/story and 2) designed or "balanced" in the favour of the player then AD&D or OD&D may not be for you. IMO, Later editions (Third Edition and up) are more balanced towards the players and more suited for linear storytelling. A/OD&D are about exploration, free-form emergent story lines (i.e. less railroading) and a sense of danger with where the consequences are real (especially at low level). There are many AD&D players who wont name their character until they've reached 3rd or 4th level. They enjoy the sense of danger and the fact that their actions (and bad luck) may have dire consequences for their own characters and the characters of their co-players. It comes down to personal taste and there is no "right or wrong" here. AD&D predates a lot of modern convention seen in story-driven games (especially video games).
David Damasceno it's called realism. See what some people fail to realize is RPGs were so different. They wanted brutality and to die all the time. Because in a real situation, getting past that beast would be hard. So it is in game. This was brutal yes but also immersive and semi realistic. Few heroes would succeed but when you did make it it was REWARDING!
8.75/10 I appreciate your knowledge and the love you have of the game. I have just begun to got into D&D myself with my schools new D&D club. I would suggest a better mic and lighting, but other than that you're words flow smoothly and I can tell you are confident but I can't sense much passion in your voice. Very bored and melancholic. But other than that this video is quite interesting and nice to watch. -Rose
Thanks for the kind review, Rose. It's nice to hear that schools still run D&D clubs. Ironically I have access to much better audio visual equipment - I just used what was within reach as I wanted to make this video very quickly and quietly (it was late and my kid was asleep). There are not many videos out there on First Edition Advanced or early edition D&D combat, so I thought I would do this video as a sort of youtube experiment to gauge interest. I thought it was important to stick to the books as much as possible, with very little value judgement, thus the material is a bit dry. I made plenty of mistakes too (most of which are noted in the video description above). BTW, this is not how I normally run combat in 1E AD&D myself. Perhaps my subsequent videos will be of a higher quality. Cheers.
I'm not sure what you find funny: my possible misinterpretation of the Minotaur's multiple attacks as separate attack routines or my randomizing the targets of those attacks. If it's the latter, I will argue that unless circumstances dictate an obvious choice for attack (i.e. relative positioning, monster predilections/motivations, commands, etc.) in the case where there are two or more possible targets and it can go either way, you ought to randomize who it goes to. Any other way means that you're not being totally impartial! What if one of the players is your girlfriend and she is giving you the "please don't kill my character" bunny-face? (and believe me, I have been there) The dice removes any biases that might be happening at the table and protects DM from accusations of bias or favouritism (i.e. "you chose my character because you didn't want to kill your GF's character!").
I have a question about a comment you make about 9:30 about the charge taking place outside of the initiative order. As I understand it, the charge is resolved in step E (close to striking range or charge), with who strikes who first dependent on the weapon reach (DMG pg 66, "Initiative is not checked at the end of the charge movement. The opponent with the longer weapon/reach attacks first." Can you cite a source for the charge not occurring in that sequence of actions?
Yes, I get your questioning here. But since no one is doing steps A through to D in that round "E" (the charge) effectively happens before "G" (strike blows) and initiative rolls are not considered during a charge (as per your quote above) but rather it's all about weapon length. Admittedly, where I am stretching out beyond the book here is the fact that a give a probability of Elda accidentally running her comrade through during the charge.
To be honest, when I'm running my own games (which are not strictly by-the-book), I will generally let missiles and spells go off before or during the charge (with the understanding that the charge might get foiled) and then resolve the charge before other melees are resolved. The rules point in this direction by 1) not considering initiative as the determinant for who get's "first strike" in a charge and 2) putting E (close in to striking range / charge) before G (melee).
Maybe. But because Elda accidentally directed her charge at Ursla (who was facing the other way) that "longer reach" rule was negated since the Minotaur was no longer the target of the charge. Fog of war. The one minute combat round assumes a lot of feinting and parrying, attempts at blows, general chaos and confusion. At the DM's option, all melee attacks can be randomized (as are all missile weapon attacks). So Ursla being there, in the way, was enough to prevent that counter attack. If Elda had not accidentally charged into her comrade, then the Minotaur would have had first blows because of the longer weapon reach (for other post-ruling reasons that can be "narrated away" later). The AD&D combat rules are abstract in nature. The results give you a framework to tell a story, but they don't completely tell the story for you.
I haven't watched the video in years, so I'm not sure where this happens, so maybe it's a bogus call? But then again the rules are a bit ambiguous in this regard. I gave the Minotaur an AC TYPE 10 (not an actual AC of 10) as per the "WEAPON TYPES, GENERAL DATA, AND “TO HIT” ADJUSTMENTS" table on page 38 of the PHB. The DMG states (pg 28): "Naturally, monsters wearing armor will be subject to weapon type "to hit" adjustment" There's a lot of freedom/interpretation by the DM regarding this subject and made a call that not all DMs would (and said so in the video). Below is the full quote: The DMG states on page 28: "If you allow weapon type adjustments in your campaign please be certain to remember that these adjustments are for weapons versus specific types of armor, not necessarily against actual armor class. In most cases, monsters not wearing armor will not have any weapon type adjustment allowed, as monster armor class in such cases pertains to the size, shape, agility, speed, and/or magical nature of the creature. Not excluded from this, for example, would be an iron golem. However, monsters with horny or bony armor might be classed as plate mail if you so decide, but do so on a case-by-case basis. Naturally, monsters wearing armor will be subject to weapon type "to hit" adjustment." Anyway, the point of the video is to show that although the rules attempt to be air-tight, they are not and so a DM often has to make calls...
+Old School DM 0:55 Playing by the book was NEVER ludicrous!! I played AND DMed this back 1978 and you always PLAYED it by the book! What are you talking about??
Funny, I never met anyone who ever played exactly by-the-book, according to the Dungeon Masters Guide (DMG). Ludicrous may have been a strong word (futile may be a better word). I refer you to the constant debate about how to conduct 1E AD&D combat, by the book, on dragonsfoot.org. Just google "dragonsfoot, initiative, by the book" and you'll see that many old school players still cannot fully grok the rules as written and that a majority are using house rules or rules interpretations. In 1978, AD&D was not fully released. There was only Original D&D and Holmes' Basic (neither of which are covered here). OD&D referred the reader to Chainmail for combat procedure, as well as a very simple "alternative combat system" which we now know as the de facto "roll d20 to hit" system (Chainmail man-to-man used 2d6). In 1978, only the AD&D Player's Handbook (PHB) and Monster Manual (MM) were available - the DMG would not become available until August of 1979. Yes, the combat charts were published in The Dragon (Feb '79, issue #22) but that "sneak preview" did not address procedure. All anyone had back in 1978 was the PHB, MM, OD&D, Holmes Basic - simply put, there was no by-the-book AD&D in 1978. If you were playing OD&D (or basic) by-the-book in 1978, I applaud you. For a discussion on the many rule variants used by players in the 1970's I refer you to the ODD74 proboards forums where many old-timers discuss their methods from the past.
I'm working on a redux of this video, accounting for errors I made in this one and the feedback I've received. But I'm a busy guy. Fleelance work, musician, dad, DM to about 20 ppl.
Oh, totally understand "busy." :-) Anyway, old school gamer (started with D&D in the late 70s and now writing RPGs professionally... Full circle!) Thanks for doing the vid and I look forward to your revised version down the line!
Oh damn I forgot plate is 400 gp! Still you would figure the other two would chip in to help their tank out ! Great vid really enjoyed it the 2 or 3 times that I have already watched it ^^ .
Still, most fighters can afford at least Chain Mail at 1st level - it is pretty unrealistic to have 2 'combat' characters without decent armour, and a thief not wearing leather.
Did people really die this freaking often? Or were they out of their league? I mean, homedude went dead in 2 hits. Why are ACs so low on a d20 instead of a monster having 25% chance to hit at low levels (in 5e), they really had 75%? That's nuts.
Yes, the mortality rate for low level characters (levels 1 - 4) is generally quite high in early AD&D, proto-AD&D, as well as Classic (BX) and Original D&D. The idea of tailoring your dungeon so that your players would not die was not the common mindset. Part of the game was knowing that failure was an option. Sometimes the best course or action, is to parley, avoid or run from an encounter. If you look at page 174 in the 1E AD&D DMG you will see that random encounters were arranged by "level," where level refers to the general power of the monster. On the first level of a dungeon, there's a chance of encountering 1, 2 and even 3rd "level" monsters. A heightened sense of danger was built into the game. Things are different in modern iterations of D&D. Now players expect to live, no matter what. In this case, they were outmatched, but some clever players would find ways to survive such an encounter (escape, go back to town and hire some mercenaries, for example). Ppl who enjoy a setting where death is a real possibility, where caution and tactics are the rule, enjoy playing old-school games like AD&D. Surviving is an accomplishment. Leveling up is a real accomplishment. To put it simply, it's a game where the stakes are higher.
Your last sentence resonates with me. I'd be more than happy dying and trying again or coming up with another way to go at an encounter. And I'm sure I can find a DM like that. The only problem I have is that ODND doesn't really have any variant options. No monks/bards or what not. The options are a little too limited for me. But I think it's awesome that there was a real sense of danger. I don't know what level those were you were playing with (I assume level 3-4), but I think I'd have instantly ran from a minotaur just by looking at it at that level. However, in 5e, unless level 1-2, I'd probably fight a minotaur until I realized I couldn't take it. It does look like it'd be a little fun though. Maybe I'll look into starting a 1e game.
You're right about both OD&D and AD&D not having as many variants in terms of multi-class characters, although OD&D is a much more malleable rules set (it actually requires a lot of customization just to run it). I'm sure there are some ardent fans who have expanded the class/race options for OD&D - there are a lot of variant rules out there (even going back to the 70's. Arduin Grimore comes to mind). Things were just less codified in OD&D. 1E, however, has some pretty limited race/class restrictions. If you are wondering about monks, They first appear in OD&D (If I remember correctly) in the second supplement, "Blackmoor." Monks were made standard in 1E AD&D. Bards also first appear in OD&D supplements and then again in 1E AD&D (as an optional "prestige class"). Happy gaming!
The 1E and 2E rules are generic enough for you to make your own characters and tailor them as you level up. The rules are just a set of mechanics from which you can work. The key ingredient is imagination. As for mortality....well...Ive never met anyone intelligent who liked to put effort into a game that was easy
My group plays every other week. It took us around 2 years to get to 9th level. We got tpk'ed. We have been playing almost half a year and I just lost a 3rd level character fighter character. I think I am rolling up maybe my 10th character now? I have lost count. The 3rd level is the highest I have had now since the 9th level tpk. I did have a 1 hp paladin for a while lol. I rolled a 1 on a d10 for hp. He lasted a lot longer then I thought. This last tpk we had my 3rd level fighter a 5th level cleric, and 4th level cleric, and a multiclassed 1st level character. We got tpk'ed by 2 trolls with an encounter check at night. You can't wear armor at night when you sleep so the clerics did not have their armor on so effective ac of 9 with their shields.
16:28 -- Based on this comment about not liking to open rule books during game play, it doesn't appear to me that you have actually ever actually run an AD&D combat encounter in a game. There was no way to avoid looking in the DM Guide (or a screen with the combat tables) in an AD&D encounter!!! You make it seem too easy in this vid: I want to see DM's looking for the right table and then running the finger across and down to match the character level and enemy AC -- at least for the first round!!! Although I prefer the wide-open fantasy literature-based flavor of TSR D&D to the player-creativity-optional video-game style of WOTC D&D, I will NEVER use the AD&D combat system again. I wish you would have shown the table look ups so that people could get a taste of the absolute pain in the ass that AD&D combat was!!! I know: I lived through it. After having played that way for 4 years, in 1985 my group decided to simplify it so that the game could flow: no more looking up stuff on table. I am fascinated by the recent rash of OSR games, but I would only consider running one that uses the more modern combat system. That's one of the few things that WOTC got right -- no combat tables.
I've used a screen since 1983 or so ... the screen has the charts, so I don't need to page through books. In 1989, I started using THACO (even in my 1E games). But to address your observation that I've never "actually run an AD&D combat" the truth is I have, 100s, maybe 1000s of times. But not like this. My games were much simpler than this back in the day. I didn't randomize targets (like the DMG suggests) or use weapon speeds or use segments. Not many did. Not every viewer here is groking what the point of this video is: to show that AD&D combat (as written) is pretty complex, often contradictory and up for interpretation. It's funny how ppl get hung up on this stuff. Personally, I've never had a problem with descending AC systems, especially when players fill out their "to hit" matrix. Just ask them what AC they hit: "I rolled X so I hit AC Y" and then tell them if it's a hit or not .. no table needed. But then again, the table is right there, on the screen. Cheers
It's not so much of a "problem" to run look-it-up-on-the-table combat so much as a drag. It slows the game down. I think you could have done a better job of showing people how much of a pain in the ass it really is. Thanks. PS -- Yes, I remember when THACO was introduced in Dragon magazine before 2e! :D
i played with a group of guys that had almost all the tables in the 1st ed books memorized. ive not played much 1st ed, but ive seen other guys run entire modules without referencing books
I have a DM screen in front of me when I play and there are 5 TO-HIT charts in front of me. I know what level each of my players are and I note down what the monsters AC is. pretty much can tell if they hit or not within like 5 seconds. No running my finger along the table necessary. I have never had a player complain to me that combat takes too long (and believe me, they would) .I will agree that AD&D combat is complicated and convoluted however.
1979 DMG pg 61: "A surprised party is caught unawares or unprepared. In such circumstances the non-surprised (or less surprised) party has an immediate advantage which is reflected in the granting of 1 or more segments of initiative, during which the active (or less surprised) party can take actions 4. A. through H., wholly or partially depending on several modifying factors. The surprise segment IS 6 seconds." It's pretty clear that so-called surprise rounds are actually segments (fractions of a round) . Yes PCs can make full melee / missile attacks as if it were a full round. But spells and other actions are not treated the same way in any surprise segments gained.
![ILLSLICK - THE KING'S LANDING [Freestyle]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/feIJJnNkTfk/mqdefault.jpg)
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 83 วันนี้!! คู่เอก "พันฤทธิ์ vs ซุปเปอร์บอล วันของโอม MBK"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1b4pkKHa_Fk/mqdefault.jpg)
this party definitely needed a Cleric
As soon as he said " Minotaur ", you KNEW it wasn't going to end well.....
That's about how things went if you walked into a straight on fight.
1e D&D: Make allies, set traps, lure enemies out, scout ahead and plan ahead. Win by RPing your party into an advantageous situation.
Yeah, I caught that in the beginning.I just wanted to emphasize to the younger players that the rules in the old days was nebulous at best and part of the novelty of attending a new game was that not only did the campaign or adventure change but that there was a tectonic shift on how the game was played depending on how the DM choose to piece the rules together,rules lawyering simply was not possible in those days nor was it really part of our culture.What many young people fail to realize is that DnD didn't appear in a vacume,the 70's (when I was in college) was a truly special and creative time.You would go to the drive in and catch a Bakshi double feature of the animated Lord of the Rings and Wizards or catch a Yes concert in the park then go home put tangerine dream on the turn table ,turn the black lights on for your posters and play Expedition to the Barrier Peaks,The art,music and literary culture was free wheeling and fun,but there was an innocence to it that's been lost.
The surviving character apparently forgot the lantern.
I just love the worn look of your books and that creepy minotaur picture in the monster manual!
Nice video, I am currently reading the adnd 1st,ed rules and trying to understand it to start off a small campaign, I have no background whatsoever in pen and paper role playing games so this is very helpful for me... The first edition of adnd has something about it that the later and current editions just don't have to spark the same level of interest for me in them... Hope to see more vids soon, really appreciate it.
My friend ,
No one ,and I mean NO-one ,played AD&D by the book back in the day,I attended gen con 1981-83 and even the folks running the games didn't run them like this.The "rule" books were just notes on his thoughs regarding his experiences running the game up to that point.When we were waiting for the first DM's guide to be released we just used combat tables cut from dragon magazine articles ,greyhawk little book and the arduin grimoires critical hit tables.I don't think folks who started playing in the last few decades really understand how free wheeling and liberating those days were.We celebrated our liberation from the "game board",now the board in integral to playing.sad.....
I know where you're coming from and I agree. I was there (not at Gen Con but playing D&D/AD&D) in early 1980's. This is an example of "as close to by the book as I can get," (and, upon further analysis there are some minor errors here, but that's another story). I state early on in this video: "the idea of true BtB AD&D combat/initiative is ludicrous." Back in the day I winged a lot of combat procedure, especially concerning, who's positioned where, initiative, order of events and "what's possible in a one-minute combat round." Still, I think this was an interesting experiment to attempt combat as presented in the DMG and I've actually adopted a few of the "commonly overlooked" practices suggested in therein. I use miniatures here in this video because 1) this is a solo video and i need something visual 2) the DMG suggests using them (although explicitly stated as optional). Back in the day we only used miniatures for marching order and the occasional visual aid in important combats. I didn't use a battlemat then and I hardly use one now. I've had this exact discussion on Dragonsfoot recently (regarding this video). Nevertheless, there are some groups out there currently running AD&D who use battlemats this way (I've played, not DM'ed, a few times in these groups)...
MPA2000 Speed factor is only used when there's a tie in initiative.
Please make more videos.
My son found my old books and wants to play. It has been almost 30 years since I played and I am really rusty.
Hi. I'm holding all comments about "the splint is AC 4" because, yes, I'm fully aware I made that error and it's already been pointed out and I addressed it up here in the description. Thanks! :)
Another viewer pointed out the error (and I can't seem to find the comment) that Ursla's opportunity to attack in round 3 was skipped. She should have had an attack after the Minotaur at the end of round 3 (according to initiative). This is true. My apologies. This is due to human error on my part (and not having live players to step up and say, "hey did you miss my turn"). This video was recorded on the fly and unscripted (like real gaming). In practice mistakes like this do happen from time to time and a good DM will listen to their player's protests and amend things on the spot (or apologize later, if the mistake is not brought up in game) or make a ruling and sort things out afterward. Many errors like these go unnoticed in real face-to-face games (where the proceedings are not recorded and scrutinized). Thanks to the viewer who pointed this out. The error has been noted in the video description.
Wanted to encourage you to do more of these. It's a help for old dudes like myself who a a little rusty with the 1st gen rules as well ! Thanks for the video!
Love this video, greatly usefull! Before my game, I always check it out make sure I still grasp the general rules of AD&D combat. Thanks for this!
3 low level characters vs a minotaur... only one way that was going to end.
Might I suggest tge three characters face of vs an orc patrol (5 orcs or so); this way you could show off speed factor, weapon lengths, etc. There were some obvious errors and one or two basic mistakes, but I found it to be one of the better vids out there.
Great video man! I do a simplified version of combat in AD&D (or simplified as in closer to the osric procedure) but I was always wanting to see videos on the subject. There's a lot of content on current editions in youtube land but not much AD&D love. Hope to see more from ya!
Thanks! I also run AD&D much simpler in my current campaign. I'm currently working on my next campaign which will be using Original "Little Brown Books" D&D - talk about scaling back the rules and crunch!
Great video! I'm gearing up to run a campaign of Rules Cyclopedia soon however I grew up on 3rd edition and have little experience with AD&D outside of the Baldur's Gate videogames lol. I like how you broke down combat step by step. Any chance of doing another video where the dreaded spellcaster-in-melee occurs? I own the AD&D 1st edition reprints however some things are kinda hazy from just reading it lol.
good demo,
but this fight is unfair. I won't sit or stand quietly while the minotaur kills pcs
Great breakdown of the nebulous AD&D combat system lol. Nice video and I hope to see more from you in the future! Just doing a search on TH-cam, there aren't very many AD&D 1st edition videos. If you're looking for any video ideas, a character creation video or more DM-type videos would be great. The comments about using a battle mat and mini's would be good to address in a DM video as AD&D seems to be more story-focused so these elements may not be needed or even desired by certain groups.
Also, some 1st edition character creation vids would be awesome
More vids please
Hey is it possible that you could make a more in-depth video on combat in AD&D 1E Because my DM and our group are confused on rules (Mostly on during which segments melee combat goes, spells, missiles, etc and how rolling initiative die plays into it)
Thank you for the video
I invite you to check out this blog. It does a great job of explaining how AD&D initiative works/does not work as written:
home.earthlink.net/~duanevp/dnd/initiative.htm
Mass combat isn't really used in melee like this more during warfare when firing a catapult or when there are tons of people and it's hard to see, like during a night raid on your camp. More often then not you can easily identify your combatant.
This is true for melee weapon attacks, but in the case of missile attacks targeting is always random when firing into a existing melee. DMG pg 64:
"...discharge of missiles into on existing melee is easily handled. It is permissible, of course, and the results might not be too incompatible with the desires of the discharging party. Assign probabilities to each participant in the melee or target group according to sheer numbers..."
I have one remark. Ursla uses the sling in the first round. She is ofcourse aiming for the monster but has a chance to hit Crang. But her dex should not be added to that chance, her dex should be subtracted because the higher the dex the lesser the chance you hit a partner.
That would be a good ruling. just and fair. But not shown in the rules as far as I can see. See page 64 in the 1979 DMG under the heading "Dexterity Penalty And Bonus Considerations"
"The Dexterity Attacking Adjustment is for missile firing considerations when initiative is considered. It adjusts the initiative die roll for the concerned individual only. Thus, it may well allow the concerned individual to discharge a missile prior to the opponent‘s attack even though the opponent has gained the initiative otherwise or vice versa. More important, this factor also gives the individual a “to hit” penalty or bonus when discharging a missile at an opponent."
Cheers
I bought the PDFs for the reprinted versions of AD&D 1e, and I've been reading the DMG for a while. I'm kinda getting how everything works, and it is very interesting, though kinda hard to remember all the detains. The ADDICT file helps a lot. Still I'd like to know if people actually used rules like speed factors and AC adjustmens. Although I enjoy the idea of having more things to be aware of when choosing your weapon besides damage, I feel those rules might slow things down a bit.
In my current campaign we use AC adjustments and speed factors (when they are necessary, which is not often). It's the player's duty to have that information written down for each weapon their character carries. Typically, the players roll their own attack rolls, make the adjustment based on the opponent's armor type (not AC, but what the opponent is actually wearing) and then tell me the "best" or lowest AC they hit. So it's roll .... "I hit AC 5" and then I tell them if they had a "telling blow" or not (i.e. if they hit and caused damage).
Old School DM idiscepolidellamanticora.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/addict.pdf
This might help. ADDICT (Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Initiative and Combat Table) explains this most convoluted of initiative systems in only twenty pages! Brevity!
There is a lot to love about AD&D, but the initiative system is not one of them.
I am aware of and have this document, thanks. ADDICT is a great interpretation of the rules as written. I've been running and playing this game for over 30 years - every DM (without exception) runs combat a little differently. None of them are "wrong." Cheers!
If you write it on a chart it helps.
Awesome. Would love to see more 1st edition AD&D vids, as it's my favorite edition. Also, why did Urula need a 15 if the minotaur's AC was 10?
It's the minotaurs "AC type" which is an often forgotten rule about weapons having different to-hit adjustments to different types of armor. AC 10 is when a person is wearing no armor, many don't apply it to monsters who don't wear armor, but it can be adjudicated by preference. Such as a cat having AC 10 type and an elephant have an AC 8 adjustment due to having a tough hide.
Never allowed weapon vs AC adjustment against a natural AC. As I understand the rule, armor "type " is just that; leather, chain mail, plate & shield, etc. Also treating the minotaur's axe as a halberd is all cool, but in the case of tied initiative it would attack last due to it's abysmal weapon speed.
All in all a good representation of how deadly AD&D combat. Rule of thumb, in a party of two spell casters and a fighter, if your fighter goes down after a couple of hits from one monster, RUN, YOU FOOLS!
Thanks for your kind and insightful comment. There's some schools of thought out there. I always allow it against Humanoid types (orcs, goblins, etc.) who wear armor and in special cases where the natural armor resembles an armor type (like plates, or tough hide, etc.). The DMG does make an example of "monsters with horny or bony armor" being treated as plate mail (pg 28).
One thing that's missing from this video is the social contract aspect of play. It's easy to make oversights, mistakes or unfair over rulings without others there to either accept or challenge your rulings as they come. That's a big part of the game. Players always look after their own interests and will announce that they have an advantage over certain armor types (or whatever the case may be) as well as point out what disadvantages a monster might have against them - and sometimes I'll rule in their favour (even if they are stretching things a bit). The same goes for me - I'm willing to hear out small grievances as they occur. That's not to say the DM doesn't have a responsibility to know the rules...but we are only human, after all. Truth is, I've never sat at a table (as DM or player) and NOT seen "mistakes" happen. They happen and it's part of the experience. Making this video was like working in sort of a vacuum, on the fly, - and so mistakes were made without anyone there to check...I plan to do a redux of this video and it will be more carefully plotted.
Cheers!
This is not a good combat example of 1E combat for several reasons. 1) I've NEVER seen, even 1st level characters this lightly armored. 2) Determining the archer's target BEFORE the attack roll completely negates the skill of the archer. i.e., there's NO DIFFERENCE between a 1st level archer and a 20th level archer, which is ridiculous.
1E gives the DM a LOT of leeway in regards to situations like this.
Pg. 63 of the DMG states that firing into a melee has its pitfalls, and gives some examples of procedure, with ratios, but it leaves the exact procedure completely up to the DM. Furthermore, it states that larger targets have a greater chance of being hit than smaller ones, as in the video, but I don't see the issue with the math being that difficult.
I also, have never seen where firing into melee negates the attack roll. In fact, the very last sentence of that section, Gary writes that he always allows an archer to hit a giant creature engaged with a mansized or smaller opponent.
A more reasonable procedure in this case (or any such case for that matter), would be to have the attack roll made FIRST, and if a miss THEN determine potential secondary targets. In addition, assign an attack penalty for firing into the melee (-3 or 4 normally... completely up to the DM.... , but in this particular case perhaps only a -2 because of the minotaur's greater size). This allows more skilled archers to be successful more often, which logically makes sense.
I'm sorry you feel that way, captcorajus. I enjoy your channel, btw.
For what it's worth, back in the day I didn't use these rules as shown here - I played combat much simpler and I did allow missile combatants to choose their targets. In the case of missile fire, I did almost exactly what you suggest - only checking to see if a friendly was hit if the archer missed their intended target. It seemed the natural way to do it. But as you say, "1E gives the DM a LOT of leeway in regards to situations like this." However the DMG does indeed dictate that target determination occurs before the to-hit roll. I quote on page 63...
"Assign probabilities to each participant in the melee target group according to sheer numbers. In the case of participants of varying size use half value for size "S" , normal value for size "M" , and one and one-half value for size "L" creatures which are not too much larger than man-size. Total the values for each group and ration one over the other...(((Gygax goes on to give various examples)))...The minor difference represents the fact that there will be considerable shifting and maneuvering during combat which will tend to expose opponents to fire on a near equal basis. Such missiles must then be assigned (by situation or by random determination) to target creatures, a "to hit" determination made, and damage assessed for those which to hit."
This video is an attempt (a vain one perhaps) at interpreting AD&D combat as written in the 1979 DMG. Needless to say there's a lot of ambiguity here and born from that ambiguity come individual practises that become "the proper way," in each DM's individual campaign. Sometimes these new practises make more sense than the rules as written. More power to ya.
Cheers and Take Care
captcorajus I always allow the players an opportunity to take -2 on a ranged attack against enemies in melee with companions to bypass the chance of hitting a party member
Love to see more videos on AD&D First edition man.
It's so sad that you didn't make more videos
I may still. I may make another AD&D combat video (hopefully with less errors in it). Classic/OD&D as well...
Ok cool thanks
I am waiting for it, I liked this video very much - good example of how this game was actually played
Still have my books from when they first came out.
I had forgotten how damn slow this is.
This is gold! :D... great video
Very helpful vid! I hope you will find inspiration to post more!
I'm confused as to where the minotaur is getting +2 to hit. The MM entry just says it gets +2 to damage with a weapon.
Thanks for pointing that out. You're not confused. The MM does say only +2 to damage. I admit fully that I made a mistake by assuming that the bonus went towards the "to hit" and not damage (notice I didn't add a bonus to the Minotaur's damage). I'm glad you brought this up because this sort of thing often happens in real, face-to-face games (i.e. small errors here and there). Most of the time they go unnoticed, but sometimes a player has exceptional knowledge of the rules as written (like having the whole MM memorized, because, as a rule, players are not supposed to reference the MM or DMG during play). As an explanation for the bonus, I touted the Minotaur's "exceptional strength". Now, I made a ruling there (even if it didn't jive with the books) and if a player were to bring this up in game, depending on their approach and tact, I might retract the ruling ("...oh you're right, I don't add 2 to his to hit roll of 18, which is enough to hit, but I do add 2, twice, to the 19 damage...that's 24 damage...") or maybe I wouldn't retract the ruling ("...no as I said, this particular Minotaur has exceptional strength and gets +2 to hit..."). It's the DM's prerogative to make such calls in-game. And it's the player's prerogative to either accept the ruling or move on to another group. Cheers!
Old School DM Hello! If I recall correctly, the older MM only list the monster's Thac0 based on hit dice and does not include any bonus for high strength. With this in mind, if the mino had a +2 to damage then he should at least be allowed a +1 to hit to justify its high strength. However, as it is noted in, I believe all of the older book, the rule are merely a guide and not an absolute. So, it is often the DM's prerogative.
I think the combat tables based on the monster's HD is deadly enough.
Suggestion: Add page numbers so people can look the individual rules for themselves.
If I make another video, I hope it will be error free and, yes, better referenced. Thanks for the input (big fan of your vlog, Jon).
Also, in round 4 where they are just trading blows, wouldn't the minotaur's 2 attacks automatically go first and last, with no regard to initiative?
The Minotaur gets two attacks but not two "attack routines," like a high level fighter would. The rules around multiple attack routines (which are different than number of attacks per round) are there to address high-level fighters. There aren't many monsters with true multiple attack routines. There's lots of debate out there about what is actually meant by "multiple attack routines." Some people are inclined to treat monsters with 2 or more "attacks per round" as multiple routines, whereas some (like me) see that as a single routine consisting of two attacks per round... go to dragonsfoot.org/forums for more discussion...
I see. I assume that if the attack is made with different weapons--like a claw/claw/bite routine, then they all go at the same time. But if it's two attacks with a weapon (and you were clearly rolling weapon damage, not bite/head butt damage), then they resolve as a fighter with two attacks.
That's a totally valid assumption. The rules are not clear-cut in these matters and how the situation is handled is up to the DM. Some DMs would handle the two attacks like separate "attack routines" (thus taking the attacks out of initiative and having them go first and last, like you mention in your comment above), some DMs would only allow the Minotaur one attack if it's only using the axe (and not butting with its horns or biting). I treated the Minotaur's 2 attacks as a single routine here (mostly for simplicity sake). In a real-life situation, at a table with other humans, a player might object to my handling and I might consider their input, or I might say: "this is how I handle multiple attacks from monsters" and move on.
The DMG (kinda sorta) defines a single attack routine on pg 63.
"Note that a routine is the attack or attacks usual to the creature concerned, i.e. a weapon (or weapons) for a character, a claw/claw/bite routine for a bear (with incidental; damage assessed as it occurs - the hug, for example)"
The Minotaur's two attacks with a single weapon can be abstracted in various ways: perhaps the radius of the axe swing is so long it has a potential to hit up to two figures, or the Minotaur can come down with his axe on a victim and then twist or pull the axe for a second attack, or maybe the creature is just incredibly/inhumanly/fantastically fast and strong. When you think of the typical claw/claw/bite routine of a lot of monsters out there, it's hard to imagine all of that happening that at once, but it doesn't really - rather, in the chaos of the 1-minute combat round there's an equal probability of any of those natural weapon "hitting" any combatant within striking range. The system is not meant to get too detailed in terms of the "how."
Nice video! I never played old school D&D, but my friends would like to try. But as I read through the book, I wonder how people had fun with this game. I mean, it's so brutal, the odds are always against the players, and they could die so easily. Like in this video. How are the heroes supposed to pass though that minotaur? As the Dungeon Master I'd like to see the players moving on and keep the story going, but when the enemies just cant be beaten.. how do you do that? Can you give me some advices?
Thank you,
To address your question:
First, this is not an actual campaign or scenario with real players and multiple minds at play. In a real campaign, the heroes may have made different choices (they may have retreated and returned with henchmen, for example). Statistically, there was a good chance (but not a great chance) that the Heroes could defeat this minotaur, however the dice were simply not with them and their tactics were not the best. There's a long tradition in AD&D of example combat "not going so well" for the heroes...
...Second, there is a philosophy in old-school D&D that (in my experience) does not always sit well with many younger people. If you grew up with video games that are 1) linear in terms of narration/story and 2) designed or "balanced" in the favour of the player then AD&D or OD&D may not be for you. IMO, Later editions (Third Edition and up) are more balanced towards the players and more suited for linear storytelling. A/OD&D are about exploration, free-form emergent story lines (i.e. less railroading) and a sense of danger with where the consequences are real (especially at low level). There are many AD&D players who wont name their character until they've reached 3rd or 4th level. They enjoy the sense of danger and the fact that their actions (and bad luck) may have dire consequences for their own characters and the characters of their co-players.
It comes down to personal taste and there is no "right or wrong" here. AD&D predates a lot of modern convention seen in story-driven games (especially video games).
Thanks, I'll try to keep that mindset when playing with my friends!
David Damasceno it's called realism. See what some people fail to realize is RPGs were so different. They wanted brutality and to die all the time. Because in a real situation, getting past that beast would be hard. So it is in game. This was brutal yes but also immersive and semi realistic. Few heroes would succeed but when you did make it it was REWARDING!
8.75/10 I appreciate your knowledge and the love you have of the game. I have just begun to got into D&D myself with my schools new D&D club. I would suggest a better mic and lighting, but other than that you're words flow smoothly and I can tell you are confident but I can't sense much passion in your voice. Very bored and melancholic. But other than that this video is quite interesting and nice to watch.
-Rose
Thanks for the kind review, Rose. It's nice to hear that schools still run D&D clubs. Ironically I have access to much better audio visual equipment - I just used what was within reach as I wanted to make this video very quickly and quietly (it was late and my kid was asleep). There are not many videos out there on First Edition Advanced or early edition D&D combat, so I thought I would do this video as a sort of youtube experiment to gauge interest. I thought it was important to stick to the books as much as possible, with very little value judgement, thus the material is a bit dry. I made plenty of mistakes too (most of which are noted in the video description above). BTW, this is not how I normally run combat in 1E AD&D myself. Perhaps my subsequent videos will be of a higher quality. Cheers.
This was great. Thanks!
Nice video but...
10:43 "I would be a 'bad' DM if I just chose those attacks on my own, so I'm going to randomly determine who gets what attacks." LoL
I'm not sure what you find funny: my possible misinterpretation of the Minotaur's multiple attacks as separate attack routines or my randomizing the targets of those attacks. If it's the latter, I will argue that unless circumstances dictate an obvious choice for attack (i.e. relative positioning, monster predilections/motivations, commands, etc.) in the case where there are two or more possible targets and it can go either way, you ought to randomize who it goes to. Any other way means that you're not being totally impartial! What if one of the players is your girlfriend and she is giving you the "please don't kill my character" bunny-face? (and believe me, I have been there) The dice removes any biases that might be happening at the table and protects DM from accusations of bias or favouritism (i.e. "you chose my character because you didn't want to kill your GF's character!").
I have a question about a comment you make about 9:30 about the charge taking place outside of the initiative order. As I understand it, the charge is resolved in step E (close to striking range or charge), with who strikes who first dependent on the weapon reach (DMG pg 66, "Initiative is not checked at the end of the charge movement. The opponent with the longer weapon/reach attacks first." Can you cite a source for the charge not occurring in that sequence of actions?
Yes, I get your questioning here. But since no one is doing steps A through to D in that round "E" (the charge) effectively happens before "G" (strike blows) and initiative rolls are not considered during a charge (as per your quote above) but rather it's all about weapon length. Admittedly, where I am stretching out beyond the book here is the fact that a give a probability of Elda accidentally running her comrade through during the charge.
To be honest, when I'm running my own games (which are not strictly by-the-book), I will generally let missiles and spells go off before or during the charge (with the understanding that the charge might get foiled) and then resolve the charge before other melees are resolved. The rules point in this direction by 1) not considering initiative as the determinant for who get's "first strike" in a charge and 2) putting E (close in to striking range / charge) before G (melee).
But shouldn't the minotaur's longer reach have struck before the charge was resolved?
Maybe. But because Elda accidentally directed her charge at Ursla (who was facing the other way) that "longer reach" rule was negated since the Minotaur was no longer the target of the charge. Fog of war. The one minute combat round assumes a lot of feinting and parrying, attempts at blows, general chaos and confusion. At the DM's option, all melee attacks can be randomized (as are all missile weapon attacks). So Ursla being there, in the way, was enough to prevent that counter attack. If Elda had not accidentally charged into her comrade, then the Minotaur would have had first blows because of the longer weapon reach (for other post-ruling reasons that can be "narrated away" later). The AD&D combat rules are abstract in nature. The results give you a framework to tell a story, but they don't completely tell the story for you.
Minotaur has a natural AC, giving it an ac of 10 is just bogus
I haven't watched the video in years, so I'm not sure where this happens, so maybe it's a bogus call? But then again the rules are a bit ambiguous in this regard. I gave the Minotaur an AC TYPE 10 (not an actual AC of 10) as per the "WEAPON TYPES, GENERAL DATA, AND “TO HIT” ADJUSTMENTS" table on page 38 of the PHB.
The DMG states (pg 28): "Naturally, monsters wearing armor will be subject to weapon type "to hit" adjustment" There's a lot of freedom/interpretation by the DM regarding this subject and made a call that not all DMs would (and said so in the video). Below is the full quote:
The DMG states on page 28:
"If you allow weapon type adjustments in your campaign please be certain to remember that these adjustments are for weapons versus specific types of armor, not necessarily against actual armor class. In most cases, monsters not wearing armor will not have any weapon type adjustment allowed, as monster armor class in such cases pertains to the size, shape, agility, speed, and/or magical nature of the creature. Not excluded from this, for example, would be an iron golem. However, monsters with horny or bony armor might be classed as plate mail if you so decide, but do so on a case-by-case basis. Naturally, monsters wearing armor will be subject to weapon type "to hit" adjustment."
Anyway, the point of the video is to show that although the rules attempt to be air-tight, they are not and so a DM often has to make calls...
awesome!!
have never left it
thank you
+Old School DM 0:55 Playing by the book was NEVER ludicrous!! I played AND DMed this back 1978 and you always PLAYED it by the book! What are you talking about??
Funny, I never met anyone who ever played exactly by-the-book, according to the Dungeon Masters Guide (DMG). Ludicrous may have been a strong word (futile may be a better word). I refer you to the constant debate about how to conduct 1E AD&D combat, by the book, on dragonsfoot.org. Just google "dragonsfoot, initiative, by the book" and you'll see that many old school players still cannot fully grok the rules as written and that a majority are using house rules or rules interpretations. In 1978, AD&D was not fully released. There was only Original D&D and Holmes' Basic (neither of which are covered here). OD&D referred the reader to Chainmail for combat procedure, as well as a very simple "alternative combat system" which we now know as the de facto "roll d20 to hit" system (Chainmail man-to-man used 2d6). In 1978, only the AD&D Player's Handbook (PHB) and Monster Manual (MM) were available - the DMG would not become available until August of 1979. Yes, the combat charts were published in The Dragon (Feb '79, issue #22) but that "sneak preview" did not address procedure. All anyone had back in 1978 was the PHB, MM, OD&D, Holmes Basic - simply put, there was no by-the-book AD&D in 1978. If you were playing OD&D (or basic) by-the-book in 1978, I applaud you. For a discussion on the many rule variants used by players in the 1970's I refer you to the ODD74 proboards forums where many old-timers discuss their methods from the past.
More videos!
Well done!
Surprised you never did another video...
I'm working on a redux of this video, accounting for errors I made in this one and the feedback I've received. But I'm a busy guy. Fleelance work, musician, dad, DM to about 20 ppl.
Oh, totally understand "busy." :-) Anyway, old school gamer (started with D&D in the late 70s and now writing RPGs professionally... Full circle!) Thanks for doing the vid and I look forward to your revised version down the line!
I like this game I play a character called jay and I am best friends with Natasha
Why in gods name are the Fighter/magic-user and fighter not in plate !? I go into a dungeon as a fighter I'm getting my plate/lrgshield/bastard sword.
Because the DM was by-the-book on training for level costs and they're therefore too poor to buy plate. ;)
Oh damn I forgot plate is 400 gp! Still you would figure the other two would chip in to help their tank out ! Great vid really enjoyed it the 2 or 3 times that I have already watched it ^^ .
Fighter/mage restricts magic abilities
What's the point of using a bastard sword with a shield? If you use it one handed, it's treated as a long sword, which is lighter and less expensive.
Still, most fighters can afford at least Chain Mail at 1st level - it is pretty unrealistic to have 2 'combat' characters without decent armour, and a thief not wearing leather.
Did people really die this freaking often? Or were they out of their league? I mean, homedude went dead in 2 hits. Why are ACs so low on a d20 instead of a monster having 25% chance to hit at low levels (in 5e), they really had 75%? That's nuts.
Yes, the mortality rate for low level characters (levels 1 - 4) is generally quite high in early AD&D, proto-AD&D, as well as Classic (BX) and Original D&D. The idea of tailoring your dungeon so that your players would not die was not the common mindset. Part of the game was knowing that failure was an option. Sometimes the best course or action, is to parley, avoid or run from an encounter. If you look at page 174 in the 1E AD&D DMG you will see that random encounters were arranged by "level," where level refers to the general power of the monster. On the first level of a dungeon, there's a chance of encountering 1, 2 and even 3rd "level" monsters. A heightened sense of danger was built into the game. Things are different in modern iterations of D&D. Now players expect to live, no matter what. In this case, they were outmatched, but some clever players would find ways to survive such an encounter (escape, go back to town and hire some mercenaries, for example). Ppl who enjoy a setting where death is a real possibility, where caution and tactics are the rule, enjoy playing old-school games like AD&D. Surviving is an accomplishment. Leveling up is a real accomplishment. To put it simply, it's a game where the stakes are higher.
Your last sentence resonates with me. I'd be more than happy dying and trying again or coming up with another way to go at an encounter. And I'm sure I can find a DM like that. The only problem I have is that ODND doesn't really have any variant options. No monks/bards or what not. The options are a little too limited for me. But I think it's awesome that there was a real sense of danger. I don't know what level those were you were playing with (I assume level 3-4), but I think I'd have instantly ran from a minotaur just by looking at it at that level. However, in 5e, unless level 1-2, I'd probably fight a minotaur until I realized I couldn't take it. It does look like it'd be a little fun though. Maybe I'll look into starting a 1e game.
You're right about both OD&D and AD&D not having as many variants in terms of multi-class characters, although OD&D is a much more malleable rules set (it actually requires a lot of customization just to run it). I'm sure there are some ardent fans who have expanded the class/race options for OD&D - there are a lot of variant rules out there (even going back to the 70's. Arduin Grimore comes to mind). Things were just less codified in OD&D. 1E, however, has some pretty limited race/class restrictions. If you are wondering about monks, They first appear in OD&D (If I remember correctly) in the second supplement, "Blackmoor." Monks were made standard in 1E AD&D. Bards also first appear in OD&D supplements and then again in 1E AD&D (as an optional "prestige class"). Happy gaming!
The 1E and 2E rules are generic enough for you to make your own characters and tailor them as you level up. The rules are just a set of mechanics from which you can work. The key ingredient is imagination.
As for mortality....well...Ive never met anyone intelligent who liked to put effort into a game that was easy
My group plays every other week. It took us around 2 years to get to 9th level. We got tpk'ed. We have been playing almost half a year and I just lost a 3rd level character fighter character.
I think I am rolling up maybe my 10th character now? I have lost count. The 3rd level is the highest I have had now since the 9th level tpk. I did have a 1 hp paladin for a while lol. I rolled a 1 on a d10 for hp. He lasted a lot longer then I thought.
This last tpk we had my 3rd level fighter a 5th level cleric, and 4th level cleric, and a multiclassed 1st level character. We got tpk'ed by 2 trolls with an encounter check at night. You can't wear armor at night when you sleep so the clerics did not have their armor on so effective ac of 9 with their shields.
16:28 -- Based on this comment about not liking to open rule books during game play, it doesn't appear to me that you have actually ever actually run an AD&D combat encounter in a game. There was no way to avoid looking in the DM Guide (or a screen with the combat tables) in an AD&D encounter!!! You make it seem too easy in this vid: I want to see DM's looking for the right table and then running the finger across and down to match the character level and enemy AC -- at least for the first round!!!
Although I prefer the wide-open fantasy literature-based flavor of TSR D&D to the player-creativity-optional video-game style of WOTC D&D, I will NEVER use the AD&D combat system again. I wish you would have shown the table look ups so that people could get a taste of the absolute pain in the ass that AD&D combat was!!! I know: I lived through it. After having played that way for 4 years, in 1985 my group decided to simplify it so that the game could flow: no more looking up stuff on table. I am fascinated by the recent rash of OSR games, but I would only consider running one that uses the more modern combat system. That's one of the few things that WOTC got right -- no combat tables.
I've used a screen since 1983 or so ... the screen has the charts, so I don't need to page through books. In 1989, I started using THACO (even in my 1E games). But to address your observation that I've never "actually run an AD&D combat" the truth is I have, 100s, maybe 1000s of times. But not like this. My games were much simpler than this back in the day. I didn't randomize targets (like the DMG suggests) or use weapon speeds or use segments. Not many did. Not every viewer here is groking what the point of this video is: to show that AD&D combat (as written) is pretty complex, often contradictory and up for interpretation. It's funny how ppl get hung up on this stuff. Personally, I've never had a problem with descending AC systems, especially when players fill out their "to hit" matrix. Just ask them what AC they hit: "I rolled X so I hit AC Y" and then tell them if it's a hit or not .. no table needed. But then again, the table is right there, on the screen. Cheers
It's not so much of a "problem" to run look-it-up-on-the-table combat so much as a drag. It slows the game down. I think you could have done a better job of showing people how much of a pain in the ass it really is. Thanks. PS -- Yes, I remember when THACO was introduced in Dragon magazine before 2e! :D
i played with a group of guys that had almost all the tables in the 1st ed books memorized. ive not played much 1st ed, but ive seen other guys run entire modules without referencing books
I have a DM screen in front of me when I play and there are 5 TO-HIT charts in front of me. I know what level each of my players are and I note down what the monsters AC is. pretty much can tell if they hit or not within like 5 seconds. No running my finger along the table necessary. I have never had a player complain to me that combat takes too long (and believe me, they would) .I will agree that AD&D combat is complicated and convoluted however.
Also, it's a surprise round, not segment. Plus, initiative is modified by dexterity. Did you actually read these rules?
Lame
1979 DMG pg 61: "A surprised party is caught unawares or unprepared. In such circumstances the non-surprised (or less surprised) party has an immediate advantage which is reflected in the granting of 1 or more segments of initiative, during which the active (or less surprised) party can take actions 4. A. through H., wholly or partially depending on several modifying factors. The surprise segment IS 6 seconds."
It's pretty clear that so-called surprise rounds are actually segments (fractions of a round) . Yes PCs can make full melee / missile attacks as if it were a full round. But spells and other actions are not treated the same way in any surprise segments gained.