D&D 1E The indispensible 1e

[amerigoV]

Hmmm. No one's mentioned the different damages of S-M and L. I suppose no one thinks it's worth carrying to 5E (I don't)?

I was just walking through the thread to see if it was there. I have very fond memories of 1/2 Orc Brothers that I ran who got into Dragon Slaying due to the 3d6 two-handed sword damage.

Awesome times.

 

[Andor]

Ahhh, now I see the problem. You see you seem to forget that prior to 3e the combat round used to be one minute long and the combatant were considered to spend most of their time parrying and feinting, all of that swinging was abstracted to a single attack roll (with multiple attack rolled per round simulating the fact that a more skilled warrior would lend more hits in a given amount of time), the weapon speed factor simulated the fact that all that swinging takes time.

It's easier to dart in and out with a knife than it would be with a sword (I happen to know this from experience).

Warder

Yeah, yeah. of course if you are using a one minute combat round which has abstracted an entire combat sequence into a single roll then... weapon speed factors make no sense at all, since they fail to meaningfully portray... anything.

We never used them in my games for that reason.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Ahhh, now I see the problem. You see you seem to forget that prior to 3e the combat round used to be one minute long and the combatant were considered to spend most of their time parrying and feinting, all of that swinging was abstracted to a single attack roll (with multiple attack rolled per round simulating the fact that a more skilled warrior would lend more hits in a given amount of time), the weapon speed factor simulated the fact that all that swinging takes time.

No it isn't. The weapon speed factor allows you to hit first. What you are talking about is the ability to do more damage.

It's easier to dart in and out with a knife than it would be with a sword (I happen to know this from experience).

It might be easier to dart in and out with a knife (as you know from experience), but it's easier to swing a sword a few times than to dart in and out with the dagger to swing it. Because I've an extra foot or two of steel I do not have to dart in.

 

[dagger]

From dragonsfoot

From dragonsfoot

In chainmail's man to man table some weapons were better against "horse" which can be interperated as "large" enemies.

So, weapons that were often used by foot soldiers against mounts did more damage (technically they hit more often). This translates to a man sized/larger than man sized.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

When ad&d was being compiled (very little info in ad&d was "new"), a major effort was to include and translate lots of chainmail rules into the core (they were in 0d&d, but were a separate document and not always easy to use with d20) Things like weapon vs. AC and s-m/l are some of these.

The "advanced" part of d&d was mostly the inclusion of chainmail.

 

[dagger]

Here is another reason:

According to Gygax he introduced it in order to bolster fighters. The stuff about the Man-to-Man table from CM might have been a factor, but does not really hold up too well under analysis. For instance, the dagger in AD&D in no way reflects its capabilities in CM, whether relatively or directly.

 

[fuindordm]

In AD&D speed factor didn't relate to hitting first against another weapon, unless:

If initiative was tied between 2 combatants in melee, then a weapon with a much lower speed factor (difference of 7, IIRC), then the faster weapon got an extra attack: e.g. Dagger - Two-handed sword - dagger. This rule gave a slight but concrete disadvantage to the largest weapons.

The other thing speed factor was used for was to compare against casting times.

Using speed factor to adjust initiative for fights in progress doesn't make much sense. Reach is just as important. You don't get proficiency in dagger because you think you can hit the guard with the longs word first. You learn it because it is a versatile weapon that you can carry with you anywhere without raising eyebrows.

 

[DMKastmaria]

In AD&D speed factor didn't relate to hitting first against another weapon, unless:

If initiative was tied between 2 combatants in melee, then a weapon with a much lower speed factor (difference of 7, IIRC), then the faster weapon got an extra attack: e.g. Dagger - Two-handed sword - dagger. This rule gave a slight but concrete disadvantage to the largest weapons.

The other thing speed factor was used for was to compare against casting times.

Using speed factor to adjust initiative for fights in progress doesn't make much sense. Reach is just as important. You don't get proficiency in dagger because you think you can hit the guard with the longs word first. You learn it because it is a versatile weapon that you can carry with you anywhere without raising eyebrows.

I've always used individual initiative and factored in casting times thusly, so never saw a compelling enough reason to use the weapon speeds. I also interpret that DMG passage I quoted above, in a relatively strict fashion, so If a caster is being directly threatened in melee, with no meatshield (or not enough of them) to take the heat off, he can't cast a spell with a longer casting time than one segment, anyway.

 

[dagger]

This is how we do it still for 1e.

Each side rolls 1d6 each round, high roll goes first, ties are simultaneous (if we feel like it, if not, reroll). Spellcasters must announce any spell being cast before init is rolled. Casters suck it long, and suck it hard.

 

[Blackwarder]

No it isn't. The weapon speed factor allows you to hit first. What you are talking about is the ability to do more damage.



It might be easier to dart in and out with a knife (as you know from experience), but it's easier to swing a sword a few times than to dart in and out with the dagger to swing it. Because I've an extra foot or two of steel I do not have to dart in.

Well mate, I'm not going to argue with you, we liked it and generally used it when we played. It was an optional rule and it should stay that way so we could both be happy

Warder

 

[howandwhy99]

What I count as the rules for early D&D and therefore indispensable are not printed in any of the books. They're insinuated, but never quite spelled out. What counts as rules in any case are really referee guidelines for the puzzle creation and as far as that goes all of this stuff is optional. For those who want puzzles similar to AD&D I suggest using most all of it in different ways. It's just easier to point out the problem cases than the large number of positives.

Off the top of my head:

1. A number of subsystems are overly complicated without need. They definitely could be trimmed down, but only with the eyes of someone who understands why they are what they are in the first place.

2. The information tracking rules preclude the Sage as is. I'd dump it altogether, but if a Legend Lore spell can be pieced together then a workable NPC Sage might be too.

3. The numbers are off on a number of matrices as I see it. Probably the most important is the Saving Throws table, but your analyses may be different.

4. The Treasure Tables aren't wholly without merit, but they really need an entire rewrite from a different conceptualization.

...There is a lot more, but I'm not really done with my own analysis. Most of AD&D is overpowered and really can't be used as is in terms of balance. The core system and a large number of the subsystems are very functional and were quite groundbreaking in their day. I'd definitely include the majority of them as options if you have a good feal for what they are about.