Major Contentions in AD&D: Part 1?

Debatable AD&D Interpretations

With the OSRIC Kickstarter looming in the new year, many wonder how different it is to AD&D. Further more, with people learning AD&D, questions come up that generate contention. The people who have been stewarding AD&D for newer generations have specific takes on the game. I am writing this blog post as a survival guide for navigating these conversations (or ignoring them).

An interpretation of a rule isn't the same as a house rule if it can be argued as Rules as Written (RAW) or By the Book (BTB). This is a oddly specific but necessary distinction as conversations about how to play AD&D are assumed to be RAW, which makes responding with a house rule without specifying it often like farting in a moment of silence. So people have a subconscious motivation to justify their interpretation as a RAW, which is natural, but some of those cases people are using the Law of Omission to stake a claim under the flag of "well it doesn't specifically say X", which makes things messy.

Messy is what we don't want in teaching spaces, because people are asking direct, often foundational, questions. Some people love watching debates fly, especially if they are wide-eyed first timers, but just as many people are lead to confusion by these common contentions. 

Other interpretations are reasonable readings of the rules, what was said, what wasn't said, and how it dovetails into the rest of the system. They have been debated, cited, counter-cited, and running on the fumes of belief for decades. These aren't posted here to invite debate: that's been done and it's tired. And I have no interest in it, only that people are aware of these. It's for information and reference. I am biased because I am me and this is my blog. These are the Major Contentions in AD&D and they will always be.

Overarching Initiative

First up, is the major one. AD&D Initiative Controversy There isn't a whole lot to say here other than what's written in that linked thread, but some of it's splinter-children result in some of the other major contentions. One of the major differences is that, basically, spill-over segments from actions that did not complete within the 60 seconds of a combat round, complete at the end of the round rather than work their way into the following combat round.

When does casting start in the combat round? 

The debate comes down to: "If the party initiative is 3, then when does the Fireball start casting?" 

I say that on segment 3 you start casting, and finish the end of segment 5. This means you can be interrupted (not merely struck to be unable to cast that round) to lose the spell while being hit on segments 3-5. 

Others say you start on segment 1 and finish segment 5. So you can be interrupted at any time to lose that spell.

Others say you start on segment 1 and finished the end segment 3, which greatly reduces the window of interruption outside of a melee condition.

And others say something else, usually involving not calculating the segment additive of casting time as X-1.

When does movement start in the combat round?

This is a contentious position in that movement cannot be totally free, but how people have walked away from the rulebooks with conclusions has varied quite a bit.

I say that any action that is not contested, that it happens along the timeline of segment to segment play. Therefore, if there is a combat round where your fighter and cleric are in a melee with 4 ogres, but the thief wants to head down the corridor away from the fight to watch the rear, he just goes. He doesn't wait 24 segments into a combat round to move: he just does. 

If he wanted to charge from outside of the room, then nothing is stopping him. He is running at the ogres recklessly and this is taken into account with the charge AC penalty. He begins the movement of his charge on segment 1, he does not wait 24 segments to start.

If he wanted to pull out a potion from his pack, drink it, and then move, I would calculate all of those actions as segment costs. Just like the example in the DMG:

The other point of view, while also being argued as RAW, is simpler to execute. You do the thing you need to do starting on your initiative. This removed some of the potency of a charge attack. And if a charge attack started in a surprise round and didn't complete into the next round, then that's a consideration for the very first point of Overarching Initiative.

How are characters with high dexterity who do not get surprised handled during segments of surprise?

There is a method that says they are simply not surprised. They don't get their own actions, as they don't have surprise. But they don't have the status that surprise would give such as being attacked at the rate of 1 round (or 3 if prepared missile fire) per segment.

There is another one that lets them act in their segment, therefore making the surprise segments a miniature round. 

In terms of game balance, it doesn't differ much in practice, but you are making surprise by a pack of monsters much less threatening if you have a few party members with reaction adjustments that can also react. 

Attacks at the end of a charge are attack routines?

The rulebooks are not clear on whether the attack at the end of a charge is an attack (singular), or an attack routine. I choose attack routines, which benefits haste and dual-wielding, especially at higher levels, and makes monster ambushes a bit more potent. 

When looking at this in conjunction with the surprise rules, I feel that it scales better into the level 8-9 range when monsters need more attack rolls to hit better AC heroes for there to be some attrition. While the special abilities and explosive powers they face can turn the tide of combat against the players easily, melee is one of the things that is the easiest to mitigate if the economy of attacks is too low. Likewise, shoving 200 monsters into rooms shows as a contrivance to the players, where is establishing a two-sided rule that always existed means that you can get your extra economical attack roll balancing naturally. It's also more fun.

Weapon Speed of Natural Attacks

Natural attacks have no weapon speed. Or they are the same as fists. This is a melee initiative tie-breaker issue. If they have no weapon speed, some rule that any weapon with a speed attacks first. Others rule that having no weapon speed, means they attack first.

Natural Weapons vs Weapon Length at the end of a charge

There is support in the DMG to use reach as a decider on what attacks hit first on a charge. But like weapon speed, it's never given any guidance. I have natural attacks return hits on their initiative. Trent over at mystical-trash-heap suggests using 1 foot for every 3 feet of height. 

Minor Honorable Mentions

When do Assassins get Thief Skills?

Assassins function as thieves at two levels lower. Some say that means they don't get thief abilities until level 3. Some say they function as a level 1 thief up until level 3. Others even look at the progression of thief abilities and map it backwards to reduce the rates.

How do we handle monsters with multiple ACs?

There's no direct guidance for fighting, say, a Bulette.

The AC is for different locations. You can randomize it, like firing missiles weapons into melee. But I prefer to just let you say 'yeah I know its tail is weak, I'll attack that this round'. One is going to reward knowledge of a monster (and obtaining it), one is going to make it more difficult by employing chance.

Does Attacking a Turned Undead "Unturn" it?

It's not stated anywhere in the rules exactly, though most people are pretty clear about cornering undead. If they can't flee, they will be cornered and fight back. Now if they flee and have room, I prefer in my games that it breaks the turn for that undead (not all that were turned). Some prefer that they will continue to flee, as if by a failure of morale so that the attacks at the back as they flee are free. And finally, others prefer that undead become useless.

Magic bows firing non-magical Arrows

It doesn't specifically state (and specially states differently on some other missile weapons) that magical bows cause the mundane arrows that are fired to be able to strike as magical weapons. Make sure to put enough ways to get magical ammo into your game if you're like me and don't have the bow enchant the arrow beyond it's +1 to hit and damage effect.

In Conclusion

The rules disagreements come from a weird place, particularly with people who have been running a certain way for decades. These ideas work into their eco-system of interpretations, they are instinctual, and allow them to run smoother games. People who successfully run AD&D campaigns with their particular set of interpretations are often 'correct' too as they have resulted in fun and successful campaigns, making it the ideal. I can only imagine that reading something counter to their ideal as possibly a badwrongfun declaration. It shouldn't be viewed that way. These are rules considerations to be made once you have a handle on the system overall, not infinite branching logic trails to learning the game.