Thank you for this. It makes perfect sense. I always assumed the negatives effected the roll but applying them to AC makes sense. Thank you for this, and the whole series for that matter.
The negatives to AC really put the whole combat table thing into some sort of perspective. It's genius with a touch of madness is how I think best describes it.
Even if one doesn't use the weapon type to hit AC adjustments, it's still 15% better from levels 1-5 than using THACO. It's not an un-hitable target now...a larger part of the time anyway. Third time I've watched this one and still learning. Thnx, David! 👍
It's those poor troubled Kobolds and Goblins that use the same matrix as a 0-level that we need to feel for. By the mid levels, it's not unusual for PCs to have AC 1 thru AC -2. Everything is still a threat, which is great.
This is why most of the AD&D games I’ve run are really just Basic with the AD&D spell list. Players never cared enough for the hard simulation of combat. None of my groups ever used this stuff.
I do use d8 as the standard hit dice. It's just force of habit after running AD&D for a long time and the MM being the primary source I used for monsters..@@mikepearse5196
Hi, that's fair enough. The example in the vid was quite basic. So here we go! PC is a Thief of 3rd Level, wearing Leather (Base AC8) and an AC of 3 (Dex modifier -4, and a Ring of protection +1). Ahead is an armoured guard - 3rd Level Fighter - in Plate mail armour and a shield (Base AC2) with an AC0 (Shield +1 and Plate +1). Our Thief is armed with a Short sword +1, and two daggers. The guard is armed with two-handed sword. . By the numbers then: The Short sword vs the guard: The AC of the guard is now -3AC (shortsword adjustment for Base AC2); The Thief 'to hit' the AC-3 requires a 20, with +1 for the Shortsword a successful roll is 19+ The Daggers vs the guard: The Dagger also takes the Guard AC to -3AC, requiring a 20 to hit the guard; Daggers thrown vs the guard: The AC becomes -5AC, requiring a 21 to hit; With the missile adjustment the attack roll required is 18+ Of course a Backstab would eliminate the target Dexterity and shield: With Shortsword vs Guard (now Base AC3 for Plate mail) has an AC2 (magic Plate). The Shortsword vs Guard (backstab) makes the guard AC0, requiring a roll 20 modified to 15 (+4 backstab, +1 shortsword). The guard to attack the Thief with two-handed sword: Vs base AC8 the two-handed sword creates +3 to hit; The guard to hit the Thief (AC3) would normally need 15+, with weapon adjustment a roll of 12+ will hit the thief.
This series of vids is, without a doubt, the best breakdown of 1e on YT, bar none. Always a delight to watch. Fully support the idea of always being some threat in engaging in combat: makes it possible to expand the MM selection to choose from and keep things lively. It's always exciting to find these books still have secrets to divulge under a watchful Sage's eyes. I hope you find it possible to update your excellent online written work as well. Curious, what was the catalyst that brought on this epiphany moment after 40 years?
Like all things it was in discussion with another long time player. We were trying to reconcile one Gygaxian statement which in turn led to bringing other statements together. Thanks for your kind words, and of course watching the videos.
This is still good info as I look into running an AD&D game. However, page 28 of the DMG indicates that monsters do not get a weapon type vs armor adjustment unless the monster is wearing actual armor.
You can, there is a small paragraph that brings it up. It does take some work as DM, and I have a chart that I use (some dragons are Base AC 3 and some are Base AC 2; tough and natural hides are like leather, gnarly skin and bony bits are like AC 7 or Studded). Same too with natural weaponry, ghat man-killer Lion with an extra HD and a couple of feet to the height, make the claws and jaws like short swords and/or daggers. It's all within scope, it's just not done because of the overhead (once you've done it, it's done).
Thanks, I watched this since I am re-reading 1st ed since I am picking it up again for the first time in 30 years (a bit over 20 since 2nd ed) and I admit it is more complicated then I remembered it. I am pretty sure we did all this wrong when we played as well, Gygax was an amazing game creator but he sometimes wrote a little confusing for the reader. Still, I don't think I seen a game with more passion and love put into it then AD&D and that does have an effect on the gameplay.
Great job, sir! Wow, I don't know that we've ever done this correctly like this since I've been playing 1st ed. Whoa! 🤔 Great comments on Grogtalk too, as always. Looking forward to many more vids from you soon, and more of your writing as well.
You're r right. I have been doing it wrong. Although, I tended not to use armor type modifiers or weapon speed factors. If there was some sort of tie, the wsf came into play.
Great information, I am returning to 1E after many years with over versions. I would recommend finding a way to have less camera movement, otherwise a great video.
It's my folksy natural charm that carries it off, though, right? Welcome back from the deep freeze, there's plenty of content about to get you back up to speed.
Hey Dave, great video. You're right about a lot of things that honestly I've missed. This does shake things up a lot. There is one place where I'm a bit confused though. You said that all negative modifiers go to Armor Class and that includes penalties from weapon proficiencies. I'm not sure that's the case. On PHB p. 37 the text says under the sub heading Notes Regarding Weapon Proficiency Table that "Non-proficiency Penalty indicates the subtraction from the character's "to hit" dice which applies to attacks by the character using such a weapon in missile or melee combat (See COMBAT). If I'm reading that correctly this penalty is one where the negative is applied to the "to hit" roll rather than to Armor Class. That seems to be an odd exception to the basic rule of negatives apply to Armor Class. That is if I'm reading this correctly and not missing something. What's your take on that?
Hi there, sorry for the delay. The example combat in the DMG, the Monk is using a Stick (bo or Jo, I can't remember), and the AC modifier was -7, taking the opponent's AC from 2 to -5. There is an order to the big 3. The Monster Manual, then the PHB, and finally the DMG. Hopefully that helps. Thank you for watching, and let me know if there is any content you would like me to cover or talk about. I'll be putting some Boot Hill content up soon, I hope you stay tuned.
Not an uncommon statement. Hopefully it's something worth revisiting (if you're still playing 1e). It doesn't help that the text is written in the way that it is, but on the other hand, that's the beauty of the game and the books. Thanks for commenting.
Gary had a beautiful, if not jumbled mind when it came to tabletop gaming. He explains things in a way he knows he would grasp. I did a mock combat yesterday between a PC fighter I rolled up with a halberd, a PC fighter with a longsword and a dozen goblins, and then did the fight over with an NPC fighter in plate with a shield What I noticed with this table is that 1. In the middle range of armor class, hits are fairly 50/50 after bonuses 2. In the weaker range, hits were consistent, and very deadly during tied initiative 3. In the stronger range, the fight tended to favor the more armored opponent, however, this evened out during tied initiatives with the longsword because of the multiple attacks, and with the halberd, it didn't even matter, unless there was a tied initiative, in which case the halberdier was attacked 6+ times. When the rules are used in conjunction with themselves they make a very consistent combat experience. Polearms may be able to punch through armor easily (seriously hitting AC2 on a 14) but due to their speed, the polearm wielder can easily be overwhelmed by dagger users during a tied initiative, which means the combat favors the middle of the road weapon, despite its penalties. I feel ignoring this system would heavily favor lighter weapons.
@@austinhadley6086 Gary Gygax possessed an encyclopedic knowledge of medieval weaponry. We know from interviews with the early TSR people, they were often given a 100 point questionnaire on weapons, armour, and fantasy/sci fi literature. Though some of it is dated by today's standards, Gygax created quite a well balanced system. I believe you either use all of it or none of it. Thank you for commenting and watching.
@@TheEldarGuy have you ever made a video about tied initiative before? I think a conversation about speed factor and extra attacks with fast weapons would be really nice for folks thinking about trying ad&d. You present things in a very clean manner, and I would love your thoughts on the topic. I think it's a great balancing mechanic personally, because it allows people with shortswords for example to get multiple slashes in on a guy with a pick.
@@austinhadley6086 Hi there, episodes 2, 3, and 12 all deal with the combat round. Thanks for your words of encouragement. Some of those earlier videos are a little rough, but the message holds. Filling out the AD&D Character Records makes everything easier. All the weapon data right there in one spot. Filling one out in its entirety takes both a DM and Player, which is different to the games of today. Thank you again for your comment.
I have been mulling over the multipe 20's issue for a while. Like you I have also been doing it wrong for 42 years ! as well as doing it properly from now on I will also house rule the 3rd natural 20 gets -1 damage the 4thnatural 20 gets -2 damage the 5th natural 20 gets -3 damage. in all cases the minus to damage still allows for max and min rolls Another great video.
Sounds like an interesting house rule. Still allows for those goblins with a shortsword to have a chance at the plate mail clad character that's already at 0 or -1AC. Thank you for watching and of course throwing a comment out there. I appreciate it.
@@ayebeemk2ayebeemk285 Not a problem. The sheets really help in character creation. 85 to 90 percent of the information is right there in its very text-looking layout.
I've always thought character's to-hit bonus should apply to their armor class. After all as you level up shouldn't your combat attack **and** defense improve (ability to parry, dodge, block, etc.)?
Here enters the concepts long forgotten and rarely referenced. We know that in AD&D, the combat round is broken into one minute rounds. Armour Class is reflected by armour and defensive adjustments. This reflects the higher Dex characters benefiting from being faster and having better reflexes, etc. One minute of fighting covers a lot, and the rolls used don't go into the micro game (unlike editions that followed where one roll = one actual strike); for example a character of 35hp 'takes' 6points of damage from a long sword. That blow would kill a soldier in a trained city militia (4hp to 6hp) and most other 1st and 0-level characters. To the character of 35hp, this could be fatigue, sweat, a small nick, or even a decent cut. A weapon in the category of two handed sword does d10 damage. Those things are heavy and do lots of blunt force trauma when they hit too. Hit points reflect many parts of the puzzle that is the Swirling Melee of combat. As kids we never thought about the swirling melee and the combat round, but when I started to DM proper tournaments, that's when the concept hit. There's a single throw away line in the DMG, where Gygax writes that after heavy combat (?) the party needs to rest one Turn (10 minutes). This used to have a major effect on tournament play. There is already an ability for PCs to parry, they sacrifice their Strength Adjustment 'to hit' to offset the opponent's attack (one of the few instances the modifier comes off the 'to hit' roll of the attacker).
@@TheEldarGuy Yes, agreed that a round of combat in AD&D abstractly represents an exchange of blows & parries, grappling, etc. - it would have to given the 1 minute time span. But why did Gygax and/or Arneson settle on a combat system where players take turns rolling to-hit against an opponent's armor class, with successful hits unmodified by armor? I recall reading that there was a wargaming influence in early D&D rules (AC borrowed from the rating for naval vessel's hull thickness, hit points originally representing the number of soldiers in a formation). You could argue hit points double as a measure of a character's health & fortitude as well as fighting skill. But you get into trouble explaining how a high level character can miraculously survive a 50 foot fall off a cliff, or multiple blows from the executioner's axe. So then there's a lot of hand-waving & more rules for special cases. Later roleplaying games like GURPS resolved combat as a contest of fighting skills with appropriate modifiers, with damage modified by armor as well as weapon skill. I think that's the right way to go. But D&D had already committed itself to a sort of ad hoc system created in the 1970s. Addendum: in version 3.5 optional "defense bonus" and "armor as damage reduction" rules were offered in the Unearthed Arcana supplement. Not sure if these were popular?
@@RobertWF42 Valid points... there are two points in particular I would like to deal with: Falling: the ubiquitous d6 per 10' rule has two important caveats, the first is that a 50' drop would be 1 dice+2 dice+3 dice + 4 dice + 5dice for a total 15 dice of damage. You notice how I said dice? The measure of d6 was an example, but Gygax wrote that it could be as high as d10 if the surface was hazard enough. Look to Rambo from the movie First Blood... his fall was "cushioned" by the limbs of trees and such, and in most cowboy movies, they jump into rivers. D6 became the industry standard later when DMs began to lose more of their authority. AD&D also has an instant death mechanism it takes the form of the Assassination table and even simply "Your character is dead, hand over the character sheet." An executioners axe, if the player is held (magically) or sleeping, is either instant kill or a check on the Assassin Table. If held down by brute force (sat on by an ogre), a modified Assassination Table check is likely required. AD&D is different to the later versions (even the v1.5 additions from 1985) because it is a game of rulings from the DM. There are plenty of boundaries for a DM to work within, your game can be as dangerous as you would like. It doesn't even have to be consistent. Look at Aragorn from those movies. Sometimes the plot giveth and sometimes it taketh away. I am very happy you have found and commented on my channel. If you haven't already, take a look at some of the other videos too. Thanks.
I've adjusted all the weapon vs ac adjustments to no more than +2 or -2, because to me, anything more than that is kind of ridiculous. +3/-3 seems good too, but anymore than that and it seems silly.
I think the only +4 is the Open hand vs Base AC10, the max is +3 'to hit' weapon vs armour. The negatives (being applied to the AC rather than the 'to hit' roll) makes the -5 of the club a little less painful vs Plate and Shield (Base AC2). The Club wielding attacker now hits AC-3 (for low-levels that's usually 20) and then adds Strength and other attacking modifiers to the 'to hit' roll. It sort of makes sense that a Bo and Jo are -9 and -8 respectively vs Plate and Shield.
@@TheEldarGuy If I need a 15 to hit AC 5 and have a -5 modifier, I now need a 20. This applies whether I'm adjusting the die roll or their AC. I need a 20 to hit AC 0 and I need to roll a 20, since the adjusted die roll brings it to a 15. I "believe" the only relevance to the roll vs the AC, as you stated, is to solve the problem of an unhittable opponent. Well if you're playing rules that make an opponent unhittable, then I'm not playing in your game, lol. Sadly, we never used these Weapon vs AC adjustments though, but the six 20's were silly and totally unnecessary. A 20 always hits, no matter what, just like a 1 always misses, no matter what. As amazing and wonderful as D&D was, the 1st edition DMG was a mess, filled with rules that most never used, or even knew about. However, I'll take 1st edition over 3rd 4th or 5th any day of the week. 5th is clearly designed for children who can't handle a game that's hard and death is real. Ridiculous.
@@Lightmane In 80 (or even 90)% of cases you are correct that a negative modifier is almost the same as a modifier on the 'to hit'; And you're not wrong to say that a natural 20 always hits. It helps the goblin/kobold/orc swarms also when facing against a party of mid level and higher characters. The DMG wouldn't be printed in today's world, but they didn't know what they were really doing. That raw beauty of the book is what makes it magic. It's practically a brain dump for Gygax.
@@TheEldarGuy Now on that, I agree with you 100%. I still love that book. No clue how he was able to write all that out on paper, let alone get it published. It's unreal. There's so much in it that I love. Also, 1st edition covers are the best, by far.
@@Lightmane I love these discussions and hearing how others played the game. Thank you for watching and commenting. I'm trying to present the game in a way that allows it to be understood by everyone who might have different levels of understanding.
i never ever had more fun than when i played d&d "wrong". playing dnd right was always far less fun. ive played since about 1980 or 81. our characters have been respawning since before respawn was a thing.
Not gonna lie. I had no clue what that weapon matrix was for, and my original group just modified dice rolls or dropped it. Definitely make a lot of sense now.
Thanks. It's up to each DM as to include or not. My aim is to break it down so those who want to be interested can cut through some of the hate for a mechanic they never used or understood. Thanks for watching.
Completely changed how I think of combat.
I've been doing it wrong for YEARS.
Thanks for making this, seriously.
All good. I'm glad I wasn't the only mind blown!
Terrific eye-opening video. Explains something difficult in a clear and understandable way!
Oh you! You're just saying that! But please, do go on.
Thank you for this. It makes perfect sense. I always assumed the negatives effected the roll but applying them to AC makes sense. Thank you for this, and the whole series for that matter.
The negatives to AC really put the whole combat table thing into some sort of perspective. It's genius with a touch of madness is how I think best describes it.
You explained it more clearly than the book did. 😁
@@namelessjedi2242 Thanks. That is the aim of this channel.
My motto has always been "Taking the work out of play"
OMG... I have been playing wrong 30 years. Good catch!
Even if one doesn't use the weapon type to hit AC adjustments, it's still 15% better from levels 1-5 than using THACO. It's not an un-hitable target now...a larger part of the time anyway. Third time I've watched this one and still learning. Thnx, David! 👍
It's those poor troubled Kobolds and Goblins that use the same matrix as a 0-level that we need to feel for.
By the mid levels, it's not unusual for PCs to have AC 1 thru AC -2.
Everything is still a threat, which is great.
This is why most of the AD&D games I’ve run are really just Basic with the AD&D spell list. Players never cared enough for the hard simulation of combat. None of my groups ever used this stuff.
Do you just run 1d6 hit die or 1d8?
I do use d8 as the standard hit dice. It's just force of habit after running AD&D for a long time and the MM being the primary source I used for monsters..@@mikepearse5196
Thanks for the vid. But I think I need more examples!
Hi, that's fair enough. The example in the vid was quite basic. So here we go!
PC is a Thief of 3rd Level, wearing Leather (Base AC8) and an AC of 3 (Dex modifier -4, and a Ring of protection +1).
Ahead is an armoured guard - 3rd Level Fighter - in Plate mail armour and a shield (Base AC2) with an AC0 (Shield +1 and Plate +1).
Our Thief is armed with a Short sword +1, and two daggers.
The guard is armed with two-handed sword. .
By the numbers then:
The Short sword vs the guard:
The AC of the guard is now -3AC (shortsword adjustment for Base AC2);
The Thief 'to hit' the AC-3 requires a 20, with +1 for the Shortsword a successful roll is 19+
The Daggers vs the guard:
The Dagger also takes the Guard AC to -3AC, requiring a 20 to hit the guard;
Daggers thrown vs the guard:
The AC becomes -5AC, requiring a 21 to hit;
With the missile adjustment the attack roll required is 18+
Of course a Backstab would eliminate the target Dexterity and shield:
With Shortsword vs Guard (now Base AC3 for Plate mail) has an AC2 (magic Plate).
The Shortsword vs Guard (backstab) makes the guard AC0, requiring a roll 20 modified to 15 (+4 backstab, +1 shortsword).
The guard to attack the Thief with two-handed sword:
Vs base AC8 the two-handed sword creates +3 to hit;
The guard to hit the Thief (AC3) would normally need 15+, with weapon adjustment a roll of 12+ will hit the thief.
This series of vids is, without a doubt, the best breakdown of 1e on YT, bar none. Always a delight to watch.
Fully support the idea of always being some threat in engaging in combat: makes it possible to expand the MM selection to choose from and keep things lively.
It's always exciting to find these books still have secrets to divulge under a watchful Sage's eyes.
I hope you find it possible to update your excellent online written work as well.
Curious, what was the catalyst that brought on this epiphany moment after 40 years?
Like all things it was in discussion with another long time player.
We were trying to reconcile one Gygaxian statement which in turn led to bringing other statements together.
Thanks for your kind words, and of course watching the videos.
This is still good info as I look into running an AD&D game. However, page 28 of the DMG indicates that monsters do not get a weapon type vs armor adjustment unless the monster is wearing actual armor.
You can, there is a small paragraph that brings it up. It does take some work as DM, and I have a chart that I use (some dragons are Base AC 3 and some are Base AC 2; tough and natural hides are like leather, gnarly skin and bony bits are like AC 7 or Studded). Same too with natural weaponry, ghat man-killer Lion with an extra HD and a couple of feet to the height, make the claws and jaws like short swords and/or daggers.
It's all within scope, it's just not done because of the overhead (once you've done it, it's done).
Thanks, I watched this since I am re-reading 1st ed since I am picking it up again for the first time in 30 years (a bit over 20 since 2nd ed) and I admit it is more complicated then I remembered it.
I am pretty sure we did all this wrong when we played as well, Gygax was an amazing game creator but he sometimes wrote a little confusing for the reader.
Still, I don't think I seen a game with more passion and love put into it then AD&D and that does have an effect on the gameplay.
Well done, sir!
Great job, sir! Wow, I don't know that we've ever done this correctly like this since I've been playing 1st ed. Whoa! 🤔 Great comments on Grogtalk too, as always. Looking forward to many more vids from you soon, and more of your writing as well.
Thanks, I appreciate the kind words.
As I said, the beauty of the game is that we still have much to learn.
You're r right. I have been doing it wrong. Although, I tended not to use armor type modifiers or weapon speed factors. If there was some sort of tie, the wsf came into play.
Count me among the many who played this wrong since the late 70s :)
Thanks for this :)
Great information, I am returning to 1E after many years with over versions. I would recommend finding a way to have less camera movement, otherwise a great video.
It's my folksy natural charm that carries it off, though, right?
Welcome back from the deep freeze, there's plenty of content about to get you back up to speed.
I love all this guys videos.
High praise indeed.
Thanks for watching and commenting.
Hey Dave, great video. You're right about a lot of things that honestly I've missed. This does shake things up a lot. There is one place where I'm a bit confused though. You said that all negative modifiers go to Armor Class and that includes penalties from weapon proficiencies. I'm not sure that's the case. On PHB p. 37 the text says under the sub heading Notes Regarding Weapon Proficiency Table that "Non-proficiency Penalty indicates the subtraction from the character's "to hit" dice which applies to attacks by the character using such a weapon in missile or melee combat (See COMBAT). If I'm reading that correctly this penalty is one where the negative is applied to the "to hit" roll rather than to Armor Class. That seems to be an odd exception to the basic rule of negatives apply to Armor Class. That is if I'm reading this correctly and not missing something. What's your take on that?
Hi there, sorry for the delay.
The example combat in the DMG, the Monk is using a Stick (bo or Jo, I can't remember), and the AC modifier was -7, taking the opponent's AC from 2 to -5.
There is an order to the big 3. The Monster Manual, then the PHB, and finally the DMG.
Hopefully that helps. Thank you for watching, and let me know if there is any content you would like me to cover or talk about.
I'll be putting some Boot Hill content up soon, I hope you stay tuned.
Great video!!
Thank you, high praise indeed.
You are one of the inspirations for my channel.
@@TheEldarGuy Thank you David!
Yeah we used those tables twice and never again after that
Not an uncommon statement. Hopefully it's something worth revisiting (if you're still playing 1e).
It doesn't help that the text is written in the way that it is, but on the other hand, that's the beauty of the game and the books.
Thanks for commenting.
Gary had a beautiful, if not jumbled mind when it came to tabletop gaming.
He explains things in a way he knows he would grasp.
I did a mock combat yesterday between a PC fighter I rolled up with a halberd, a PC fighter with a longsword and a dozen goblins, and then did the fight over with an NPC fighter in plate with a shield
What I noticed with this table is that
1. In the middle range of armor class, hits are fairly 50/50 after bonuses
2. In the weaker range, hits were consistent, and very deadly during tied initiative
3. In the stronger range, the fight tended to favor the more armored opponent, however, this evened out during tied initiatives with the longsword because of the multiple attacks, and with the halberd, it didn't even matter, unless there was a tied initiative, in which case the halberdier was attacked 6+ times.
When the rules are used in conjunction with themselves they make a very consistent combat experience.
Polearms may be able to punch through armor easily (seriously hitting AC2 on a 14) but due to their speed, the polearm wielder can easily be overwhelmed by dagger users during a tied initiative, which means the combat favors the middle of the road weapon, despite its penalties.
I feel ignoring this system would heavily favor lighter weapons.
@@austinhadley6086 Gary Gygax possessed an encyclopedic knowledge of medieval weaponry.
We know from interviews with the early TSR people, they were often given a 100 point questionnaire on weapons, armour, and fantasy/sci fi literature.
Though some of it is dated by today's standards, Gygax created quite a well balanced system. I believe you either use all of it or none of it.
Thank you for commenting and watching.
@@TheEldarGuy have you ever made a video about tied initiative before?
I think a conversation about speed factor and extra attacks with fast weapons would be really nice for folks thinking about trying ad&d. You present things in a very clean manner, and I would love your thoughts on the topic.
I think it's a great balancing mechanic personally, because it allows people with shortswords for example to get multiple slashes in on a guy with a pick.
@@austinhadley6086 Hi there, episodes 2, 3, and 12 all deal with the combat round.
Thanks for your words of encouragement. Some of those earlier videos are a little rough, but the message holds.
Filling out the AD&D Character Records makes everything easier. All the weapon data right there in one spot. Filling one out in its entirety takes both a DM and Player, which is different to the games of today.
Thank you again for your comment.
I have been mulling over the multipe 20's issue for a while. Like you I have also been doing it wrong for 42 years !
as well as doing it properly from now on I will also house rule
the 3rd natural 20 gets -1 damage
the 4thnatural 20 gets -2 damage
the 5th natural 20 gets -3 damage. in all cases the minus to damage still allows for max and min rolls
Another great video.
Sounds like an interesting house rule.
Still allows for those goblins with a shortsword to have a chance at the plate mail clad character that's already at 0 or -1AC.
Thank you for watching and of course throwing a comment out there. I appreciate it.
@@TheEldarGuy also, thanks for the character sheet link
@@ayebeemk2ayebeemk285 Not a problem. The sheets really help in character creation. 85 to 90 percent of the information is right there in its very text-looking layout.
I've always thought character's to-hit bonus should apply to their armor class.
After all as you level up shouldn't your combat attack **and** defense improve (ability to parry, dodge, block, etc.)?
Here enters the concepts long forgotten and rarely referenced.
We know that in AD&D, the combat round is broken into one minute rounds. Armour Class is reflected by armour and defensive adjustments. This reflects the higher Dex characters benefiting from being faster and having better reflexes, etc.
One minute of fighting covers a lot, and the rolls used don't go into the micro game (unlike editions that followed where one roll = one actual strike); for example a character of 35hp 'takes' 6points of damage from a long sword. That blow would kill a soldier in a trained city militia (4hp to 6hp) and most other 1st and 0-level characters. To the character of 35hp, this could be fatigue, sweat, a small nick, or even a decent cut.
A weapon in the category of two handed sword does d10 damage. Those things are heavy and do lots of blunt force trauma when they hit too.
Hit points reflect many parts of the puzzle that is the Swirling Melee of combat.
As kids we never thought about the swirling melee and the combat round, but when I started to DM proper tournaments, that's when the concept hit.
There's a single throw away line in the DMG, where Gygax writes that after heavy combat (?) the party needs to rest one Turn (10 minutes). This used to have a major effect on tournament play.
There is already an ability for PCs to parry, they sacrifice their Strength Adjustment 'to hit' to offset the opponent's attack (one of the few instances the modifier comes off the 'to hit' roll of the attacker).
@@TheEldarGuy Yes, agreed that a round of combat in AD&D abstractly represents an exchange of blows & parries, grappling, etc. - it would have to given the 1 minute time span. But why did Gygax and/or Arneson settle on a combat system where players take turns rolling to-hit against an opponent's armor class, with successful hits unmodified by armor?
I recall reading that there was a wargaming influence in early D&D rules (AC borrowed from the rating for naval vessel's hull thickness, hit points originally representing the number of soldiers in a formation). You could argue hit points double as a measure of a character's health & fortitude as well as fighting skill. But you get into trouble explaining how a high level character can miraculously survive a 50 foot fall off a cliff, or multiple blows from the executioner's axe. So then there's a lot of hand-waving & more rules for special cases.
Later roleplaying games like GURPS resolved combat as a contest of fighting skills with appropriate modifiers, with damage modified by armor as well as weapon skill. I think that's the right way to go. But D&D had already committed itself to a sort of ad hoc system created in the 1970s.
Addendum: in version 3.5 optional "defense bonus" and "armor as damage reduction" rules were offered in the Unearthed Arcana supplement. Not sure if these were popular?
@@RobertWF42 Valid points... there are two points in particular I would like to deal with:
Falling: the ubiquitous d6 per 10' rule has two important caveats, the first is that a 50' drop would be 1 dice+2 dice+3 dice + 4 dice + 5dice for a total 15 dice of damage. You notice how I said dice? The measure of d6 was an example, but Gygax wrote that it could be as high as d10 if the surface was hazard enough. Look to Rambo from the movie First Blood... his fall was "cushioned" by the limbs of trees and such, and in most cowboy movies, they jump into rivers. D6 became the industry standard later when DMs began to lose more of their authority.
AD&D also has an instant death mechanism it takes the form of the Assassination table and even simply "Your character is dead, hand over the character sheet." An executioners axe, if the player is held (magically) or sleeping, is either instant kill or a check on the Assassin Table. If held down by brute force (sat on by an ogre), a modified Assassination Table check is likely required.
AD&D is different to the later versions (even the v1.5 additions from 1985) because it is a game of rulings from the DM. There are plenty of boundaries for a DM to work within, your game can be as dangerous as you would like. It doesn't even have to be consistent. Look at Aragorn from those movies.
Sometimes the plot giveth and sometimes it taketh away.
I am very happy you have found and commented on my channel. If you haven't already, take a look at some of the other videos too.
Thanks.
I've adjusted all the weapon vs ac adjustments to no more than +2 or -2, because to me, anything more than that is kind of ridiculous.
+3/-3 seems good too, but anymore than that and it seems silly.
I think the only +4 is the Open hand vs Base AC10, the max is +3 'to hit' weapon vs armour.
The negatives (being applied to the AC rather than the 'to hit' roll) makes the -5 of the club a little less painful vs Plate and Shield (Base AC2). The Club wielding attacker now hits AC-3 (for low-levels that's usually 20) and then adds Strength and other attacking modifiers to the 'to hit' roll.
It sort of makes sense that a Bo and Jo are -9 and -8 respectively vs Plate and Shield.
@@TheEldarGuy If I need a 15 to hit AC 5 and have a -5 modifier, I now need a 20. This applies whether I'm adjusting the die roll or their AC. I need a 20 to hit AC 0 and I need to roll a 20, since the adjusted die roll brings it to a 15.
I "believe" the only relevance to the roll vs the AC, as you stated, is to solve the problem of an unhittable opponent. Well if you're playing rules that make an opponent unhittable, then I'm not playing in your game, lol.
Sadly, we never used these Weapon vs AC adjustments though, but the six 20's were silly and totally unnecessary. A 20 always hits, no matter what, just like a 1 always misses, no matter what.
As amazing and wonderful as D&D was, the 1st edition DMG was a mess, filled with rules that most never used, or even knew about.
However, I'll take 1st edition over 3rd 4th or 5th any day of the week. 5th is clearly designed for children who can't handle a game that's hard and death is real.
Ridiculous.
@@Lightmane In 80 (or even 90)% of cases you are correct that a negative modifier is almost the same as a modifier on the 'to hit';
And you're not wrong to say that a natural 20 always hits. It helps the goblin/kobold/orc swarms also when facing against a party of mid level and higher characters.
The DMG wouldn't be printed in today's world, but they didn't know what they were really doing. That raw beauty of the book is what makes it magic.
It's practically a brain dump for Gygax.
@@TheEldarGuy Now on that, I agree with you 100%. I still love that book. No clue how he was able to write all that out on paper, let alone get it published. It's unreal. There's so much in it that I love. Also, 1st edition covers are the best, by far.
@@Lightmane I love these discussions and hearing how others played the game.
Thank you for watching and commenting. I'm trying to present the game in a way that allows it to be understood by everyone who might have different levels of understanding.
i never ever had more fun than when i played d&d "wrong". playing dnd right was always far less fun. ive played since about 1980 or 81. our characters have been respawning since before respawn was a thing.
I named my female thief Arlanni 🙂
A very nice name.
Have you thought about how your Thief is motivated? That is something that can really an extra dimension to playing one.
Not gonna lie. I had no clue what that weapon matrix was for, and my original group just modified dice rolls or dropped it. Definitely make a lot of sense now.
Thanks. It's up to each DM as to include or not.
My aim is to break it down so those who want to be interested can cut through some of the hate for a mechanic they never used or understood.
Thanks for watching.
@David Thomson definitely keep up the good work man.
OMG stop moving the camera around! Use a tripod and get it steady. I can't watch this.
I'd like to say I get better... but I will say "I'm not as bad".
Thank you for your patience.