Calling all Old School Gamers

[Tormsskull]

Hi all,

Oh boy, have I gotten myself into a pickle. I'm running 2nd edition AD&D, and at the request of two of my players, I have tried integrating the 3e battlemap into it. Now, we're using the 2e Initiative rules where you declare your actions at the beginning, which may modify your initiative (specifically in the case of casting spells), and then you take your actions according to your declared actions.

As you can probably imagine, we ran into a whole slew of problems. First, if someone declares that they are attacking a specific enemy, and that enemy moves beyond their range to make a melee attack on, are they required to follow? Ranged attacks have been particularly painful with regards to this system.

I completely understand the best two solutions to this problems are 1.) Scrap the battlemap entirely and go back to how it was done in 2e, or 2.) Scrap the 2e Initiative system and handle combat specifically how it is done in 3e

However, my players are divided on those solutions, so I am wondering if any gamers who GM/play in 2e AD&D use a battlemap. And if so, how did you handle these situations?

Thanks in advance for any suggestions.

[nagora]

Well, I've no idea how combat in 2e works but have you thought about posting at Dragonsfoot? I think it's much more likely that someone there can help on this one.

[hamlet]

You can still use 2e initiative, but just drop the "pre-declare" stage (which means that, for the most part, weapon speeds and casting times greater than 1 round go away) and use the battle mat. It just means that you lose one level of complexity, which IMO, is not a bad thing.

Of course, my real advice is to drop the battle mat entirely as its not neccessary for 2e except in very complicated battles.

To answer your specific question, yes, I would say that in the setup you are using, it would be required of the attacking PC to pursue a target in order to attack him. However, remember that actions are all considered to be resolved simultaneously, so within reason, you can say that the PC managed to get his attack in while the enemy was beginning his retreat.

[AKA_Bait]

within reason, you can say that the PC managed to get his attack in while the enemy was beginning his retreat.

That's what I would go with although I openly confess I have quite limited exposure to the 2e combat.

[hamlet]

That's what I would go with although I openly confess I have quite limited exposure to the 2e combat.

It's a cleaned up version of 1e, essentially. You no longer needed a 10 page document to understand initiative, though it's implications are a little subtle as we see here.

[Thane of Fife]

What you could do, and what I believe is suggested in Combat and Tactics, is to generalize pre-declaration - i.e. Say "I'm going to attack an orc", rather than "I'm going to attack the third orc from the left - no, not the one wearing the hat, the other one."

Alternatively, allow players whose actions are suddenly nulled to swap in a limited fashion. "I leap over the table and club the orc" could be converted to "I leap over the table and club the troll."

Or just make players try their best to do what they declared. More than one man has rushed to attack an enemy only to realize that he's suddenly been surrounded.

[Eldariel]

I've used 2e combat in 3.5 quite a bit and here's how I handle it:
-Everyone declares their course of action for the round
-Character movement is essentially "in real time" in that they all move at once
-When possible, characters do whatever action they described
-When multiple actions become possible at the same time, resolve in initiative order

Basically, it's 3.5 with simultaneous movement and predetermined actions. If action becomes impossible (or the possibility is relevantly altered midround - target teleported out before attacking, for example), I allow the character to redefine what's left of their action.


You could kick this up one notch by running the round using "initiative" as a unit - actions begin at a point in initiative count and are resolved when the character finishes, and certain amount of character's speed can be moved per point of initiative. Then just scroll the initiative from highest roll to 0 and see what happens. Negative initiative would push the action to the beginning of the next round.

[Matthew]

Oh boy, have I gotten myself into a pickle. I'm running 2nd edition AD&D, and at the request of two of my players, I have tried integrating the 3e battlemap into it. Now, we're using the 2e Initiative rules where you declare your actions at the beginning, which may modify your initiative (specifically in the case of casting spells), and then you take your actions according to your declared actions.

Right, understanding the 2e initiative system is a tricky business, as it is wide open to interpretation. Movement is very abstract, which makes using a battle grid a difficult proposition. I take it from your post that you are using individual modified initiative, incorporating weapon speeds and casting times, if not some of what follows may be incorrect.

As you can probably imagine, we ran into a whole slew of problems. First, if someone declares that they are attacking a specific enemy, and that enemy moves beyond their range to make a melee attack on, are they required to follow? Ranged attacks have been particularly painful with regards to this system.

Changing action during the round is at the discretion of the game master; if it seems reasonable for the character to change action, then he likely will. In this case, we are basically imagining a scenario where the character is moving to attack (half speed) and his opponent is moving away (unspecified rate); the move might become a charge (double speed), or it might be redirected to another target, depending on the circumstance.

I completely understand the best two solutions to this problems are 1.) Scrap the battlemap entirely and go back to how it was done in 2e, or 2.) Scrap the 2e Initiative system and handle combat specifically how it is done in 3e.

If you have a copy of C&T you can use that for 2e initiative, but there's not that much need.

However, my players are divided on those solutions, so I am wondering if any gamers who GM/play in 2e AD&D use a battlemap. And if so, how did you handle these situations?

When I run AD&D 2e, all movement is simultaneous, no weapon speeds are used, but casting times are in play. Standard Initiative (one roll for each group), modified by action.

This Dragonsfoot [AD&D 2e] Movement in Combat thread might be useful to you. Can you provide an example of a problem in play?

Initiative and Combat
[Poll] Which Initiative do you use?
Multiple Attacks, Weapon Speed and Initiative
Order of Action for Group Initiative
Initiative Modifiers

[valadil]

I've never liked pre-declaring combat actions. It looks nice in theory, but in practice it's too darn slow and we usually ditch it after a couple sessions.

I don't see why you can't go through the initiative count down as usual, having players declare on their turn, and having actions go off n turns later, where n is the time it takes for the action to happen? This keeps a semblance of the pre-declaration, without bogging things down much more. So if you have a wizard going on 18 and his spell has speed 5 it goes off on the 13? I haven't played 2e in at least 10 years, so my understanding may be a little off.

[Matthew]

I don't see why you can't go through the initiative count down as usual, having players declare on their turn, and having actions go off n turns later, where n is the time it takes for the action to happen? This keeps a semblance of the pre-declaration, without bogging things down much more. So if you have a wizard going on 18 and his spell has speed 5 it goes off on the 13? I haven't played 2e in at least 10 years, so my understanding may be a little off.

Because it makes simultaneous movement impossible. You get orcs charging fighters who are standing still "waiting for their turn" and it increases the power of spell casters (as spells can be cast reactively). Decleration is a pretty critical phase for 2e initiative to work.

[hamlet]

Because it makes simultaneous movement impossible. You get orcs charging fighters who are standing still "waiting for their turn" and it increases the power of spell casters (as spells can be cast reactively). Decleration is a pretty critical phase for 2e initiative to work.

At the same time, it is very easily removed if it's just not your cup of tea, but it does change the way you are required to think about the situation significantly.

[DeathQuaker]

(snip)I completely understand the best two solutions to this problems are 1.) Scrap the battlemap entirely and go back to how it was done in 2e, or 2.) Scrap the 2e Initiative system and handle combat specifically how it is done in 3e

However, my players are divided on those solutions, so I am wondering if any gamers who GM/play in 2e AD&D use a battlemap. And if so, how did you handle these situations?

I am not sure if this is your case, but I know generally the reason I've heard players ask for battle maps is not necessarily to use specific tactic-based combat (a la 3.x) but simply so they have a better idea in their mind of what's going on. Especially in more complex battles, it's sometimes frustrating when..... for a totally random example, when you think the guy you're fighting is standing next to a staircase only to realize he's not and your idea about running up the staircase and then jumping onto him isn't going to work.

It also prevents player cheese (and DM cheese) from such as this from occurring:

Player: Okay, I'm standing next to the Blue Monkey and I'm going to cast a spell.
DM: The Blue Monkey hits you and disrupts the spell.
Player: Wait, I never said I was standing next to the Blue Monkey! I NEVER DID!

So....... anyway, if this is why a battle map is desirable, then the best thing to do is just be flexible with its use. It's to give you an idea of where everyone is standing and what terrain is hindering or helping you--but you shouldn't sweat it if the orc is five feet more away than you thought it was.
Let it be a visual aid and nothing more. You might even want to use an unmarked mat rather than something with a grid or hexes on it. That keeps you from being too "married" to the limitations offered by the map while benefiting from tracking the battle visually.

If it's stuff like casting an Area of Effect spell into an area that no longer has enemies in it, you might just give spellcasters some flexibility in naming their target after they finish casting their spell.

OTOH, if the players really want to use specific tactics (so medium sized creatures have precisely 30' moves, and we have move actions and standard actions, etc.) then yes, you're going to have to adapt the system to something more pure turn-based friendly. I'm not sure what to suggest since the AD&D games I played often discarded casting times and weapon speeds anyway, so we wouldn't have had this problem to this extent...

Yes, I think you'd have to probably drop the announcement of actions, and beyond that, one option would be to blend in more 3.5 stuff and turn things into move-, standard-, and full-round actions (so spells with average casting times are standard actions, and those with long casting times are full-rounds, etc.).

Another option would be.... see how they did it in oldskool Chainmail miniatures combat? Dunno if that would work (I know nothing about Chainmail), but if you don't like the new miniatures rules, may as well look at the old ones that started the whole thing anyway.

[Tormsskull]

I take it from your post that you are using individual modified initiative, incorporating weapon speeds and casting times, if not some of what follows may be incorrect.

We did not worry about Weapon Speed, but we did use Casting Times.

Changing action during the round is at the discretion of the game master; if it seems reasonable for the character to change action, then he likely will. In this case, we are basically imagining a scenario where the character is moving to attack (half speed) and his opponent is moving away (unspecified rate); the move might become a charge (double speed), or it might be redirected to another target, depending on the circumstance.

Yeah, I came up with an impromptu rule that if a declared action wasn't able to be executed when the declaree's turn came up, then they could change their declared action withn reason. If their action involved movement, they had to move at least 1/2 of their declared movement before changing their action.

This Dragonsfoot [AD&D 2e] Movement in Combat thread might be useful to you. Can you provide an example of a problem in play?

Thanks for the link. Here is an example of a problem in play:

PCs declare actions, I get enemies actions in my head, initiative is rolled.
Player 1 shoots bow and hits Enemy 1. Player 1 then proceeds to move their mini behind a wall (the wall is between Player 1 and Enemy 1).

Enemy 1's declared action was to shoot at Player 1. That is no longer possible (due to the wall).

Player 2 melee attacks Enemy 2. Enemy 2 dies.

Player 3 had declared that he was attacking Enemy 2. Since Enemy 2 is dead, and since Enemy 3 is adjacent to Enemy 2's corpse & Player 3, we assume that Player 3 can shift his declared attack on Enemy 2 to Enemy 3 (otherwise you end up with an attack that does nothing).

Player 4, an archer, had also declared to attack Enemy 2. It didn't make much sense to us that an archer would be able to shift his declared target, as it would be assumed that the archer had already drawn and let loose the arrows he was firing (i.e. assuming all of the action are simultaneous). So the archer loses his turn.
~

Of course, this is pretty harsh on ranged attackers, as well as spellcasters, while being generous to melee. Since we're basically in foreign territory here (applying 2e rules to a battlemap), I'm sure there are many things we could be doing better.

OTOH, if the players really want to use specific tactics (so medium sized creatures have precisely 30' moves, and we have move actions and standard actions, etc.) then yes, you're going to have to adapt the system to something more pure turn-based friendly.

This is the reason 1 of the player's is adamant about using the battlemap. One of the other players generally goes along with what this player says.

One of the other players prefers no battle map, and the fourth player has not really expressed a specific opinion.

[Blue Paladin]

I always thought the declaration occurred at your Initiative roll (plus Dex), and then the declared action was resolved after adding weapon speed/casting time? That's how I remember it...

-----EXAMPLE-BASED-ON-FUZZY-MEMORY-----
Fighter rolls a 6, Dex mod of -1.
Mage rolls a 5, Dex mod of -2.
Ogre rolls a 3, no Dex modifier.

Initiative tick hits 3: Mage declares his action (cast Fireball [casting time 3]). Simultaneously, Ogre declares his action (attack the Fighter [weapon speed 6 (Big Club)]).

Initiative tick hits 5: Fighter declares his action (attack the Ogre [weapon speed 2 (+2 Long Sword)].

Initiative tick hits 6: Mage's action resolves; Fireball hits Ogre.

Initiative tick hits 7: Fighter's action resolves; Long Sword hits Ogre.

Initiative tick hits 9: (If he's still alive,) Ogre's action resolves; Big Club hits Fighter.
---END-EXAMPLE-BASED-ON-FUZZY-MEMORY---

We also played with the houserule that the Mage only lost his spell if hit during the casting (between declaration and resolution). Heck, everything we played with might have been houserules...

[hamlet]

I am not sure if this is your case, but I know generally the reason I've heard players ask for battle maps is not necessarily to use specific tactic-based combat (a la 3.x) but simply so they have a better idea in their mind of what's going on. Especially in more complex battles, it's sometimes frustrating when..... for a totally random example, when you think the guy you're fighting is standing next to a staircase only to realize he's not and your idea about running up the staircase and then jumping onto him isn't going to work.

It also prevents player cheese (and DM cheese) from such as this from occurring:

Player: Okay, I'm standing next to the Blue Monkey and I'm going to cast a spell.
DM: The Blue Monkey hits you and disrupts the spell.
Player: Wait, I never said I was standing next to the Blue Monkey! I NEVER DID!

So....... anyway, if this is why a battle map is desirable, then the best thing to do is just be flexible with its use. It's to give you an idea of where everyone is standing and what terrain is hindering or helping you--but you shouldn't sweat it if the orc is five feet more away than you thought it was.
Let it be a visual aid and nothing more. You might even want to use an unmarked mat rather than something with a grid or hexes on it. That keeps you from being too "married" to the limitations offered by the map while benefiting from tracking the battle visually.

If it's stuff like casting an Area of Effect spell into an area that no longer has enemies in it, you might just give spellcasters some flexibility in naming their target after they finish casting their spell.

OTOH, if the players really want to use specific tactics (so medium sized creatures have precisely 30' moves, and we have move actions and standard actions, etc.) then yes, you're going to have to adapt the system to something more pure turn-based friendly. I'm not sure what to suggest since the AD&D games I played often discarded casting times and weapon speeds anyway, so we wouldn't have had this problem to this extent...

Yes, I think you'd have to probably drop the announcement of actions, and beyond that, one option would be to blend in more 3.5 stuff and turn things into move-, standard-, and full-round actions (so spells with average casting times are standard actions, and those with long casting times are full-rounds, etc.).

Another option would be.... see how they did it in oldskool Chainmail miniatures combat? Dunno if that would work (I know nothing about Chainmail), but if you don't like the new miniatures rules, may as well look at the old ones that started the whole thing anyway.

While it can help clarify combat, I find that many prefer a level of uncertainty in their combats, that level of being unsure exactly what's happening at any given time. It lends some insight into a character's mindset. As a character, you do not have the general's eye view of the battlefield to let you sit back dispassionately and take your time to make a decision.

Of course, the flip side, as you said, is it helps to avoid player cheese: "no, I was really standing here 20ft away from bob the mage when the explosive runes went off . . ."

It's a trade off and a matter of preference.

[Matthew]

Here is an example of a problem in play:

PCs declare actions, I get enemies actions in my head, initiative is rolled.
Player 1 shoots bow and hits Enemy 1. Player 1 then proceeds to move their mini behind a wall (the wall is between Player 1 and Enemy 1).

Enemy 1's declared action was to shoot at Player 1. That is no longer possible (due to the wall).

Segments make this stuff a lot easier. Basically, the character's initiative determines when his shot is loosed, but the point at which he scrambles for cover is at your discretion. Since you're not using weapon speeds (good choice, by the way), it depends heavily on the distance to be moved and the weapon the enemy is armed with.

Example

Talric the fighter has a movement of 90 feet. He is armed with a long bow and 40 feet away from complete cover. He wants to move and shoot in the same round.

Here we have to erase some of the preconceptions of turn based movement. Talric is moving slower than normal because he is going to shoot; he is not moving full speed, then stopping to shoot for half the round, nor stopping to shoot fro half the round, then moving full speed for cover. Rather, at some point during the round, he will shoot his bow whilst moving at half speed towards cover. Given the distance to be covered, it is very unlikely he will arrive behind cover before his enemy manages to shoot.

If segments were being used, it would be an easy matter. Divide 45 by 10 to get 4.5 feet per segment. He shoots on the segment his initiative shows, whilst his enemy shoots on the segment his initiative shows. Even when not explicitly using segments, though, you can use the same method to determine whether Talric is behind cover or not by the time his enemy takes a shot.

Player 2 melee attacks Enemy 2. Enemy 2 dies.

Player 3 had declared that he was attacking Enemy 2. Since Enemy 2 is dead, and since Enemy 3 is adjacent to Enemy 2's corpse & Player 3, we assume that Player 3 can shift his declared attack on Enemy 2 to Enemy 3 (otherwise you end up with an attack that does nothing).

Best not to declare who you are specifically attacking if there are multiple targets. Just assume that everybody is moving in a single melee.

Player 4, an archer, had also declared to attack Enemy 2. It didn't make much sense to us that an archer would be able to shift his declared target, as it would be assumed that the archer had already drawn and let loose the arrows he was firing (i.e. assuming all of the action are simultaneous). So the archer loses his turn.

Of course, this is pretty harsh on ranged attackers, as well as spellcasters, while being generous to melee. Since we're basically in foreign territory here (applying 2e rules to a battlemap), I'm sure there are many things we could be doing better.

I would have probably let the archer change targets; I suspect that at most I might have applied a to hit penalty. That said, shooting into melee is a risky business in default AD&D 2e, as targets are randomly determined.

I always thought the declaration occurred at your Initiative roll (plus Dex), and then the declared action was resolved after adding weapon speed/casting time? That's how I remember it...

Nope. Also, dexterity does not modify initiative.

We also played with the houserule that the Mage only lost his spell if hit during the casting (between declaration and resolution). Heck, everything we played with might have been houserules...

Nothing wrong with that.

[Kurald Galain]

Here's a radical thought:

Don't use initiative. Both 2E and 3E (and for that matter, every other roleplaying game in my experience) play faster without it, without losing any of the fun. YMMV.

[Raum]

And if so, how did you handle these situations?

Most of the years I played AD&D we used a battle map. Guess we just liked miniatures. I remember two methods of dealing with initiative though (two different groups). One used both weapon speed and casting times but didn't declare until their initiative at which point it was 'I start swinging my sword' or 'I start casting the spell' followed up by 'it hits' or 'spell goes off' on the segment indicated by casting time or weapon speed. This allowed adjustments up to the characters' initiatives but not during the casting or weapon use time.

The other method was simply declaring in reverse order, slowest to fastest. This gave the higher initiative players a potentially significant advantage.

Both methods (groups) generally allowed a last second retarget to any viable target if the originally declared target was no longer valid for weapons / spells directed at an individual. Unplanned movement to bring a new target into range didn't generally count. The movement might be allowed as an alternative action but it didn't let you get the original action off with the newly viable target.

The first method allowed generally faster combat rounds but, in some ways, I liked the advantage given to faster characters by the second method better.

[Beleriphon]

I think you might just want to reevalutate all of the initiative values as it stands, since most of the 2E ones don't make a great deal of sense anyways, at least for weapons. But since as you state you aren't used weapon speeds perhaps just a cyclic intiative based on the last action you took. Thus a wizard casting a spell affects his next initiative action, rather than the current one. Thus preserving the fact that he's still taking a bit longer than usual. It seems a bit wonky, but when you get right down to it a cyclic turn order doesn't matter that much once the first round is finished.

[DeathQuaker]

I think you might just want to reevalutate all of the initiative values as it stands, since most of the 2E ones don't make a great deal of sense anyways, at least for weapons. But since as you state you aren't used weapon speeds perhaps just a cyclic intiative based on the last action you took. Thus a wizard casting a spell affects his next initiative action, rather than the current one. Thus preserving the fact that he's still taking a bit longer than usual. It seems a bit wonky, but when you get right down to it a cyclic turn order doesn't matter that much once the first round is finished.

That's a good idea. Matthew's suggestion of segments could also work well if it's easy for you to calculate--it's a good way to think about the situation at any rate.

If you really want action declaration, Raum's reverse-order declaration is a good way to go. I have done this in other game systems (old White Wolf... so, grain of salt is TOTALLY different system)--it's tactically useful, but it does slow combat down quite a bit.

[Jayabalard]

Declare your actions in a fairly general fashion at the beginning, and then allow a certain amount of flexibility as people actually take their turns (what ever makes sense for you and your players). So rather than declaring that they are attacking orc #6, they're declare that they are attacking an orc, and then on thier turn they move up and attack one that makes sense.