Two different folks asked me (
on a recent post) to describe how
I run combat using the AD&D system. The short answer is:
"mostly By The Book." What follows is an elaboration of my standard operating practice, whether I'm running for two players (my kids, for example) or 8+ (such as my sessions at
Cauldron last October).
It all works the same.
First, you have to approach combat...and the AD&D game...with the proper mindset. Understand that it's meant to be fast and furious; understand that it's meant to be abstract. Above all, understand that while combat is a Very Important Part of play, it is only part of the game...only part of the adventure.
Give combat the respect that it's due...and nothing more.
The procedures provided in the instructional text are there to serve play, not vice versa. Some things are, or should be, obvious...and the edgecase rules that exist are there to cover possibilities and provide a means of dealing with any particularities more complex than the back-and-forth of two swordsmen whacking away at each other. Again: the procedures SERVE play, not the other way around. Trying to fit your play into a checkbox paradigm of if-then-what-next is missing the point.
Next (now that you, hopefully, have the right mindset), combat ALWAYS starts with the situation. As Dungeon Master, you have to understand, and be able to visualize, the circumstances of the battle about to commence. Not only must you be able to visualize it in your own mind, you must be able to explain your vision to the players, such that they can react accordingly to the situation. These days, I always carry a few miniatures for the players to represent positioning in the imaginary "battle space;" back in my youth, if I had an especially complex situation to describe, I'd do a quick sketch to help my players visualize what was going on.
But that's in a second...first, you need to check for surprise.
As in real life, surprise can be decisive and game-changing with regard to combat situations. Understanding surprise in AD&D is pretty darn essential...fortunately, it's pretty straightforward. Each side gets their BEST chance to surprise (and be surprised) which, on occasion, may mean no surprise is possible (again, this is why understanding the situational situation needs to come first). Otherwise, multiple surprise segments may occur. These days, I only worry about partial (1 segment) or complete (2 segment) surprise...I honestly can't remember if I used to award 3+ segments of surprise back in the days of my youth, but currently, I'm okay with two segments being the maximum. In my opinion, 12 seconds is plenty of time to recover your wits, unless you happen to be REALLY slow, wit-wise (i.e. a cleric with a DEX <6).
Once surprise has been dealt with, we move onto combat proper.
DECLARATION OF ACTIONS...this is the first thing we do after I've outlined/described the tactical situation to the players. I go around the table and address each player, asking what they want their character to do. Order is usually determined by relative positioning and situational awareness. Ask the guys in the front rank what they're doing first, then the secondary row guys, etc. If one character kicked in the door to a room and stumbles into a pack of wights (or whatever), for sure I want THAT person's declaration first and foremost.
Declarations of action are kept snappy. No dithering, hemming or hawing. In a situation where players actually get the drop (i.e. surprise) on an opponent, I'm a tad more lenient with declarations, especially in instances of complete surprise (PCs may well have the luxury of a whispered conference prior to taking action). My players generally have an idea of their particular "order of battle" anyway as...long before any actual encounter...I've established things like marching order, who's carrying what in their hands (weapons, shields, light sources, etc.). Sharp players will, of course, have planned out some battle tactics in advance, otherwise things are likely to devolve into a chaotic free-for-all.
Which is fine. There's verisimilitude in that.
After getting their asses handed to them once or twice, they'll start to figure things out, and go into situations better prepared. And that's fine, too...again, this is true to life. These are not well-drilled U.S Marines with extensive training in CQB...they're hardy adventurers working their way through dark and dank tunnels (or deep dark forests or mountain passes or well-lit castles or whatever), sword-and-torch in hand. A lot of players are used to smaller tables...three to five PCs...and large groups (such as one finds in convention games) can take some adjustment for the players, especially those who haven't worked together before. And, again, That's Okay. Combat is only part of the adventuring process.
SO...declarations. Players who dither or are overwhelmed (or just cautious) are passed over for the players who are more decisive. And this is FINE. Often, the player who's unsure what action to take is a spell-caster who's considering the proper spell for the situation...and he/she can fall back behind the rest of the gang, while considering. Again: this is verisimilitude. There's no need to go off half-cocked...maybe the rest of the party will take care of the bugbears withOUT the need for that web spell to get cast. And that's fortunate and saves resources for later...yay!
ALSO...no, I do not require players to write down their "orders" separately from each other. In a combat situation, I assume the players are actively communicating with each other (yelling "cast the fireball!" or "loose arrows!" or "set spears!" or whatever) even as some PCs' actions...notably charging...requires not much communication at all.
As for the opponents' actions, I (as DM) already have an idea of what they're going to do in that first round, based on their temperament, their capabilities, their numbers relative to the party, etc. Again, this is based on comprehending the SITUATION. After the first round, the situation will have changed, and the actions/reactions of the opponents will have changed as well...for me,
situation determines how the NPCs are going to act. It's not about an optimal "
Tucker's kobolds" screw-the-players approach to battle, it's about
verisimilitude. Humanoids armed with spears are not going to throw their only weapon, unless they plan on running/escaping afterwards. Animals are unlikely to fight to the death (or fight large numbers at all) unless defending their lair/young. Etc.
Back to procedure. So we've got a declaration of actions from the players. Great. Now we dice for initiative. Depending on actions chosen by players, I ask one player to roll for the party, choosing the person whose declared action is most immediate and/or most likely to be affected by the outcome of the initiative dice. For example, when facing undead, if a cleric is going to attempt to turn the creatures, I'll usually let the cleric roll the initiative die for the party. Why? Because the result might well mitigate or eliminate the entire threat the group faces.
Now let's talk segments and spell-casters. When a caster declares they're casting a spell in combat, the number on the initiative die is going to be important, due to casting time and the chance of being interrupted by an opponent. Magic-users are the most likely to cast a spell in combat given A) they're the most likely to feel "useless" outside of their spells, and B) players have a tendency to stockpile offensive magic. Fortunately, most MU spells have a casting time equal to the level of the spell (1 segment for 1st level spells like magic missile and sleep, 2 segments for second level spells like stinking cloud and web, 3 segments for 3rd level spells like fireball and lightning bolt, etc.) which is easy to remember, and outlier spells...well, with time and practice you remember that some spells (strength, for example) have a longer casting time than expected. Other than command, most clerical spells take a LOT longer to cast...hold person, that combat staple, takes 5 segments, despite being a 2nd level spell. Again, there are so few clerical spells that are useful in combat (compared to the magic-user) that you get to know the casting times after a few repetitions.
When a player wants to cast a spell, I always ask the casting time, and I'll usually have the casting player roll for initiative telling them "okay, so you need to win by x number or else you have a chance of your spell being interrupted" (assuming that there is an opponent targeting the spell-caster). FOR EXAMPLE:
Tim declares he's going to cast fireball on the bugbears who are gearing up to charge. I note that the bugbears are 30' away from the party and can easily reach the PCs, although it will take two segments to do so (as they only move 18' per segment). I thus say: "Okay, Tim, roll for initiative; if you win by 3 or more, your spell goes off before they arrive; if you win by 2 they get to attack you AND the spell goes off. If you only win by 1 they'll have a chance to hit you and interrupt the spell before you cast it."
Thus knowing the stakes, Tim and I roll initiative with everyone hanging on the results of the die rolls.
But what if Tm the wizard was facing a squad of plate-armored goons (movement: 6")? And what if they were 40' away, not 30'? It would thus take four segments (at 12' per segment) for the goons to get to Tim...how is this resolved?
Well, for me, it goes like this:
- Tim wins initiative by 3 or more: Tim's spell will go off before chargers get to Tim.
- Tim wins initiative by 2: Tim's spell and the charge attack are SIMULTANEOUS (spell goes off, even if the attack hits); with the EXCEPTION of and initiative roll of 3-1, in which case Tim's spell would go off before the goons arrived (since they need four segments to get to Tim).
- Tim wins initiative by 1: the chargers arrive first and the spell can be interrupted; with the EXCEPTION of an initiative roll of 2-1, in which case Tim's spell goes off before the goons arrive, or a 3-2, in which case the spell and charge are SIMULTANEOUS.
- Initiative results are TIED: while it's subject to debate, I'd probably rule that a 1-1 allows Tim to get his spell off first, a 2-2 results in actual simultaneous actions (spell goes off AND chargers attack) and any other result allows the chargers to strike first, possibly interrupting the spell.
- If Tim LOSES initiative, the goons are probably going to get to him before he can cast his spell. However, if he only loses by a roll of 2-1 (DM gets a "2;" Tim gets a "1"), then the spell and the charge are going to happen SIMULTANEOUSLY. Why? Because the spell will complete on segment #4, and the goons won't arrive till then.
[please note: for ME, the first segment of action counts as the first segment of casting time. So if the spell caster commences a 3-segment spell on segment #2, the spell will be completed on segment #4]
But here's what I'd ACTUALLY say to Tim:
"Okay, Tim, roll for initiative; if you win by 3 or more your spell goes off before they arrive; if you win by only 2, then their attack happens simultaneously with your casting and if you lose or beat them by only 1, they'll have a chance to interrupt your spell. However, it's going to take them four segments to cover the distance, so depending on what the actual die roll is, you might get a break...let's roll and we'll figure it out afterwards. Just know you want to beat them by as much as possible."
There's only about 6 chances in 36 of getting one of those "odd results;" 30 times out of 36, the initiative dice are going to come up with a number that's easy to adjudicate...I'm be beating Tim nearly 50% of the time just by rolling higher than him. In all likelihood, there'll be no need to work out the math ahead of time, and if it's close and the dice rolls are low (knowing that it takes the goons 4 segments to cross the distance), I'll be able to eyeball it pretty accurately.
Now if the distance were greater than 40' or if Tim were using a faster spell (say, magic missile with its 1 segment casting time), it might well be possible that the DM (me) could WIN initiative, and the spell would STILL go off before the charge arrived. In this case, the spell is not much different than missile fire which, for me, will usually occur BEFORE a charging combatant can come to grips with their foe...depending on the type of missile weapon being used.
[for the record, devices like wands and staves have a number of segments of "operation" and, in general, I just treat them as spells (i.e. with casting times) that cannot be interrupted. "Spell-like abilities" of various monsters are NOT spells and do not have casting times, nor do I treat them as interruptible]
With regard to bow-fired arrows, daggers, and darts...all of which have a rate of fire greater than 1...I treat them the same as a combatant with "multiple attack routines," thus firing both before and after initiative. While the rules are not explicit on whether or not to treat multi-fire missiles as such, I can look back to Chainmail (from whence AD&D gets the 1 minute combat round) and see that this is indeed how archer missile fire was treated: archers would receive one shot SIMULTANEOUS with movement (so the archery would be resolved against chargers prior to resolution from melee at the end of the charge) and then a second shot would be allowed at the end of the turn provided both A) the archers did not move during the turn, and B) they were not engaged in melee at the end of the turn. As with many things AD&D, I find this very obvious: charging a position of missile-armed combatants is going to get you lit up. With regard to slower weapons (crossbows and such), initiative would still be rolled and shooting is determined based on the die result AND the amount of distance the charger needs to cover.
Once battle is joined (melee...yay!) things become very straightforward, especially declarations. "You're still locked in melee, do you want to continue to attack?" Characters who break from melee (fleeing) suffer the consequences of their cowardice; otherwise, the initiative roll every round determines which combatant throws their D20 first, so long as neither opponent has the "multiple attack routine" thing going on. Once an opponent is downed, they can move to attack another opponent in combat (no attack roll is allowed when performing this movement/target switch, unless the new opponent is already in melee distance). With regard to facing, given the abstract nature of AD&D combat and the length of time in a round, I do not award "flanking" bonuses or back attacks unless an opponent is already engaged in melee (in which case, I dice randomly to see who the opponent is facing) OR the opponent is unaware of the flanker (usually because the flanking attacker just downed their own opponent and has either charged, or moved to engage an opponent that was already distracted by fighting).
With regard to the unholy section of the DMG 66-67 ("Other Weapon Factor Determinants")...eh. It's fairly straightforward, even if ugly. This section only occurs when a combatant is in melee with an opponent who is trying to do something "other than striking blows:" casting a spell, using a wand, drinking a potion, etc. You subtract the losing result of the initiative dice (1-5) from the speed factor of the melee weapon, treating negative results as positive numbers(!!) and compare the result to number of segments that it takes the non-weapon wielder to complete their action, in order to determine "what happens first." When initiative results are tied (i.e. when combat would otherwise be "simultaneous") nothing is subtracted and speed factor is simply compared to the segment time of the non-melee action...an odd choice as this can give advantage to many spell-casters one-sixth of the time.
What is NOT explicit...although I believe to be implied...is that the "losing initiative die roll" is ONLY subtracted from the weapon speed factor IF it is the melee combatant who loses initiative. If the melee combatant WINS initiative, they strike their blow BEFORE the non-melee activity takes place. This gives the advantage in melee squarely to the person with a sword, which is as it should be...Gygax writes at length about the difficulty of casting a spell during the chaos of combat; it makes little sense to give a wizard an advantage over a sword-swinger with spells like lightning bolt and magic-missile. Casting a spell while engaged in melee should ALWAYS be a desperate maneuver on the part of a caster! It only rarely comes up in my games because neither my players, nor my NPCs casters are likely to try it.
[again, NOTE: this rule only comes into effect after combatants are already engaged in melee. It does not apply during other parts of initiative when the easier "compare die results with casting time" procedure applies. I readily forgive DMs who prefer to ignore it altogether and simply use the "standard procedure" 100% of the time]
ANYWAY. As said, once combatants have come down to melee, combat gets incredibly straightforward. Initiative moves back and forth, combatants maneuvers as opponents are downed, and everyone keeps a close eye on their hit points. Morale becomes a factor for some types of foes/monsters (less so for others) and fights usually end up being to the death. For me (as the Dungeon Master) the trick is to resolve the combats QUICKLY...once combatants get "stuck in," the battle should be resolved in a few minutes. Declarations are fast. Dice are rolled fast. Damage is removed. Morale is checked. It grinds out in rapid fashion, and thank goodness, because we all (DM and players alike) want to get back to the adventure and exploration that led us to the battle in the first place.
Okay. I think that's about it. I'll answer specific questions in the comments section.
 |
| Iron Fist |
