I got to play Ticket to Ride Europe with Frank Mentzer, Stephen Sullivan and Luke Gygax at Gary Con and the conversation was quite enlightening. Frank said that one of the reasons Unearthed Arcana turned out like it did was that Gary was really behind on it so Zeb Cook and others had to jump in and actually write and finish the book in a very short time.
Frank also said internal 'politics' meant that UA and many other books never listed the true authors. He dropped lots of other trivia too. It was fascinating.
I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to insist on hearing Gene Weigel's side of the story...
Quote from: Planet Algol;638793I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to insist on hearing Gene Weigel's side of the story...
He was there, man. He was there.
While all that (i.e., about who finished UA) might be accurate, isn't most of the important stuff in UA sourced from previously written Dragon magazine articles, anyway? Seems like finishing UA would be more like editing it all together than creating a bunch of new content.
Quote from: AnthonyRoberson;638792Frank said that one of the reasons Unearthed Arcana turned out like it did was that Gary was really behind on it so Zeb Cook and others had to jump in and actually write and finish the book in a very short time.
Sounds similar to the story on OA, although in that case I think Zeb actually ended up writing the thing. But, like Philotomy mentioned, a chunk of the UA stuff had already appeared elsewhere. Intersting, nevertheless. Thanks for sharing.
Quote from: Planet Algol;638793I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to insist on hearing Gene Weigel's side of the story...
Quote from: Kyussopeth;638794He was there, man. He was there.
Stop! Stop! My sides hurt!
The only things I use from Unearthed Arcana are the subdual, vanquishing and disarming rules. I find the unarmed combat variant by Roger E Moore in Dragon to be better (Finish Fights Faster, Best of Dragon IV, p. 42 and Finish Fights Faster, Dragon Magazine #83, March 1984, p. 55.). So, I combine it with these three rulings. There is always the option of one's own ruling for these things, of course, which is also a good thing to consider. I have a house rule for spell interruption that I use that weds well with these rulings, and I'm relatively pleased with the result. The Best of Dragon volumes are a better long term resource for alternative rules than Unearthed Arcana in my experience.
The three rules from Unearthed Arcana:
"SUBDUAL
Subdual is an effective form of non-lethal combat that can be used against creatures of at least low intelligence but no greater than genius intelligence. It can be used against dragons and similar types of creatures, including basilisks, wyverns, and dragonnes, as well as against giants, ettins, bugbears, and other humanoid non-magical creatures of size L. Whether other creatures are affected by subdual is subject to the decision of the Dungeon Master, but note that creatures native to planes other than the Prime Material cannot be subdued except on those planes, and player characters can never be subdued.
In striking to subdue, all attackers must use the flat, butt, haft, pommel, or other non-lethal part of the weapon in attacking. Any attacker striking for full damage or using damage-inflicting spells will negate any subdual effects recorded up to that point.
Subdual damage is noted separately from real damage, and is 75% temporary, 25% real. If 40 points of subdual damage is inflicted on a stone giant, only 10 of those points are real. When subdual damage exceeds the total hit points of the creature, it is subdued, and a victim will not attack after being subdued except in self-defense.
The requirements and effects of subdual under this section supersedes previously published material, in particular with regard to the subdual of dragons.
Subduing a monster is just that: The monster will not further attack the group that subdued it. If captured, the monster will submit, but seek the first chance to escape and, if the party that captured it is weaker than itself, turn on its captors. This subdual will last as long as the party has a clear upper hand.
VANQUISHING
Vanquishing is a form of combat used by cavaliers, paladins, monks, and other lawful creatures to settle disputes without excessive bloodshed, involving a "duel of honor." One combatant issues the challenge and the opponent must take it up. For this reason, vanquishing combat may take place only between two intelligent beings capable of understanding each other's language, and who choose to communicate and agree to the combat.
Combat proceeds as normal, but, as with subdual, only one quarter of the damage inflicted is real between honor-bound opponents. Each combatant is "holding back" blows that would otherwise kill outright, proving his or her mastery by superior weapon-handling. Either side may resort to real combat at the start of any round, and any full real damage inflicted (either by an opponent or a third party) upon a com¬batant negates the vanquishing. Any temporary points lost are ignored, and both parties may attack normally. Poisoned blades, vorpal swords, and similar weapons with automatic effects perform as if In real combat.
Vanquishing damage is noted separately from real damage. Should one of the combatants be reduced to 0 hit points, he or she is the loser and must honorably surrender immediately. If both combatants are reduced to 0 hit points in the same round, the combat is a draw.
The winner of a vanquishing combat may demand a single service or item from the loser. The service may include banishment from the area for a time, to carry a message, do a small favor, or merely sing the praises of the victor's prowess in combat. An item may include any one weapon, armor, or shield of the loser (including magical items), or a treasure of a value not more than 1,000 gp times the loser's hit dice or level. Attempts to enslave or stay a vanquished opponent will free the opponent from any duty to the victor, though a vanquished opponent may be imprisoned if the victor had stated that fact in the initial challenge.
Lawful creatures who are defeated in this manner are honor-bound to the terms of the victor, unless to do so would be morally opposed to their alignments. Good creatures cannot be made to perform evil acts, for example. Neutrally aligned creatures have the choice of honoring such an agreement, based upon factors such as strength of the opposition and size of the defeat. Chaotic creatures are under no constraints whatsoever, and those of chaotic evil alignment will see no problem with causing an opponent to lower his or her defenses and then striking.
In general, vanquishing combat takes place between only two combatants. Multiple combat is possible, but in this case the hit points of all members of one side must be brought to 0 for the other side to claim victory. Individuals who are reduced to 0 points of "vanquishing damage" may continue to fight, but all damage taken past that point is the full, normal amount. A character reduced to 0 hit points in a multiple vanquishing combat is usually allowed to retire with no loss of honor (except from being on the losing side, if such is the case).
Vanquishing is used in tournaments and duels where a sudden loss of life would spoil the festivities. It is also used by monks and druids seeking to advance to the next level by combat. It is also used in lawful communities to apprehend felons for trial.
DISARMING
Disarming is a form of non-lethal combat that may only be used by fighters, cavaliers, and members of their sub-classes. Only the weapons below, listed in order of length, may be used to disarm:
Knife
Dagger
Horseman's Mace
Short Sword,
Footman's Mace
Sword (broad, long, falchion, or khopesh*)
*The khopesh sword has a chance of disarming an opponent in its normal mode of use. If the weapon is used intentionally for an attempt to disarm, use the rules given here.
Disarming may only be used by a fighter or cavalier wielding a weapon in which he or she has proficiency against an opponent that is likewise using one of the above weapons. Any weapon that requires two hands to use can never be affected by this form of attack.
Disarming inflicts no damage, but if a successful hit is made, the defender must make a saving throw versus petrification or lose the weapon being used (superior swordplay has torn the weapon from the opponent's grasp) Disarming can only be used against weapons of the same length or shorter; a dagger may disarm someone holding a knife and a scimitar may disarm someone with a mace, but a dagger cannot disarm someone with a short sword.
A weapon subjected to a disarming attack will fall at the owner's feet if the weapon is of the same size as the attacker's, or 1-10 feet away if of a smaller size than the weapon which did the disarming. The former wielder of the weapon must either take a round to recover the weapon, draw another, or engage in weaponless combat. It is recommended that this form of non-lethal combat only be used if the more extensive version of weaponless combat (System II) is being employed in the campaign." E. Gary Gygax, Unearthed Arcana 109 (TSR 1985).
Edit: I wrote this knowing that everyone here is more than likely completely aware of these things. It is just in case to save those that don't know AD&D 1 the bother.
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;638795While all that (i.e., about who finished UA) might be accurate, isn't most of the important stuff in UA sourced from previously written Dragon magazine articles, anyway? Seems like finishing UA would be more like editing it all together than creating a bunch of new content.
Yeah, I remember integrating a lot of stuff EGG published in
Dragon into our AD&D games before
Unearthed Arcana was published. E.g., comeliness (a horrible idea), acrobat-thief, barbarians, etc.
Quote from: Planet Algol;638793I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to insist on hearing Gene Weigel's side of the story...
:D
I suspect that "Zeb" will not emerge looking too good...
Quote from: Planet Algol;638793I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to insist on hearing Gene Weigel's side of the story...
I imagine it will go something like, "BLAAAARGL-WAARRRGH-GARBL-BLAARGGH!"
Gonna have to treat this all as hearsay until Mean Gene weighs in. :p
Quote from: Black Vulmea;638841I imagine it will go something like, "BLAAAARGL-WAARRRGH-GARBL-BLAARGGH!"
More like "JFGJDKGNDMSLGHM NDSNFJGMS KETGM, SDMGMDM" imo.
I mean, "BLAAAARGL-WAARRRGH-GARBL-BLAARGGH!" has some kind of meaning, even if it's just "I have an acute throat problem!" or "I really like death metal, wanna hear my version of "Where the slime lives" by Morbid Angel?" or "Me so angry, me so angry, me flame you long time". It can be readily understood. It's not
alien non-euclidian moon talk.
"JFGJDKGNDMSLGHM NDSNFJGMS KETGM, SDMGMDM" otoh is
alien non-euclidian moon talk. I doubt it can be pronounced, as such, except possibly in parts, by humans. It was not meant to. Never was. It was intended as lingua franca for diplomatic endeavors between Yog-Sothoth, the Chaos Gods, and those anti-matter birds from the anti-matter universe in the Zeelee books.
See? ;)
---
For something more relevant:
Quote from: AnthonyRoberson;638792I got to play Ticket to Ride Europe with Frank Mentzer, Stephen Sullivan and Luke Gygax at Gary Con and the conversation was quite enlightening. Frank said that one of the reasons Unearthed Arcana turned out like it did was that Gary was really behind on it so Zeb Cook and others had to jump in and actually write and finish the book in a very short time.
Frank also said internal 'politics' meant that UA and many other books never listed the true authors. He dropped lots of other trivia too. It was fascinating.
Interesting to hear that! I bought UA recently (stupidly enough I bought the reprint, even! Could've saved 80% buying it used...stupid Ent, stupid...:o) and well, it's hardly up to the quality expected from its creators, to put it that way. I mean okay, the spells are decent enough and the polearms are kinda fun and I'm okay with demihumans being clerics, kinda, but...but...
but...argh.
Also always liked Mentzer, the Norwegian translations of the BE parts of BECMI was my first encounter with D&D. :)
Quote from: The Ent;638925Interesting to hear that! I bought UA recently (stupidly enough I bought the reprint, even! Could've saved 80% buying it used...stupid Ent, stupid...:o) and well, it's hardly up to the quality expected from its creators, to put it that way. I mean okay, the spells are decent enough and the polearms are kinda fun and I'm okay with demihumans being clerics, kinda, but...but...but...argh.
You probably are better off with the reprint, as the binding on the original printing is famously awful. The recent version should survive being opened more than three times.
I've always found UA to be a mixed bag.
Some of it is really annoying: comeliness (why was adding this ability score important/helpful?); allowing drow, grey dwarves, deep gnomes to be PCs (renders previously exotic NPCs prosaic); barbarians (an AD&D PC that can't use magic items, right); cavaliers (good idea, overly fiddly execution); social class (again, too fiddly); and a few other things.
Some of it was good (IMO): allowing demi-human clerics (why were they restricted to NPCs in 1e PHB? that made no sense); weapon specialization (helped boost fighters a bit); the new spells (though some were problematic, e.g., stoneskin); the stuff Kuroth identified; etc.
I've never understood the hostility UA provokes in some fans of 1e AD&D. Perhaps it's that UA cranks up the overall power level of AD&D?
I didn't like that all of UA became part of 'official' AD&D. It should have been a book of 'options'.
Quote from: Akrasia;639003I've never understood the hostility UA provokes in some fans of 1e AD&D. Perhaps it's that UA cranks up the overall power level of AD&D?
There are lots of reasons, but the #1 is that weapon specialization is much more powerful - there is no reason to create a generalist fighter.
Also, it completely upends the early level play dynamic, because in 1st edition someone with multiple attacks in a round goes before the initiative die is rolled. And, in 1st edition, if you have 3/2 attacks you get your round of 2 attacks on the 1st round of combat.
So, if you have a 1st level fighter specialized in long sword, you get to go in advance of any initiative die on the first round of pretty much any combat, unless you are facing another PC class that is eligible for specialization, and any hit on a 1+1HD (or less) creature is often a kill, with the damage bonuses.
Yes, there are ways to houserule it, but if played as written it upset the balance of low-level play. It changed how the game worked at the table, if you were using the rules as written previously.
Quote from: EOTB;639010There are lots of reasons, but the #1 is that weapon specialization is much more powerful - there is no reason to create a generalist fighter.
Also, it completely upends the early level play dynamic, because in 1st edition someone with multiple attacks in a round goes before the initiative die is rolled. And, in 1st edition, if you have 3/2 attacks you get your round of 2 attacks on the 1st round of combat.
So, if you have a 1st level fighter specialized in long sword, you get to go in advance of any initiative die on the first round of pretty much any combat, unless you are facing another PC class that is eligible for specialization, and any hit on a 1+1HD (or less) creature is often a kill, with the damage bonuses.
Yes, there are ways to houserule it, but if played as written it upset the balance of low-level play. It changed how the game worked at the table, if you were using the rules as written previously.
Do you have a page reference for the whole multiple attacks automatically wins iniative rule? That doesn't sound familiar.
Quote from: Akrasia;638999You probably are better off with the reprint, as the binding on the original printing is famously awful. The recent version should survive being opened more than three times.
The reprint has the errata applied as well, which is an additional selling point to some.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;639023Do you have a page reference for the whole multiple attacks automatically wins iniative rule? That doesn't sound familiar.
Yeah I certainly don't have that understanding either. And 3/2 means 1 in the first round 2 in the second to me ;)
Quote from: Machpants;639031Yeah I certainly don't have that understanding either. And 3/2 means 1 in the first round 2 in the second to me ;)
From what I can remember, bow specialists could (if an arrow was knocked and drawn) get off a shot pre-initiative but there was nothing of the sort for melee fighters.
Quote from: EOTB;639010There are lots of reasons, but the #1 is that weapon specialization is much more powerful - there is no reason to create a generalist fighter.
Also, it completely upends the early level play dynamic, because in 1st edition someone with multiple attacks in a round goes before the initiative die is rolled. And, in 1st edition, if you have 3/2 attacks you get your round of 2 attacks on the 1st round of combat.
So, if you have a 1st level fighter specialized in long sword, you get to go in advance of any initiative die on the first round of pretty much any combat, unless you are facing another PC class that is eligible for specialization, and any hit on a 1+1HD (or less) creature is often a kill, with the damage bonuses.
Yes, there are ways to houserule it, but if played as written it upset the balance of low-level play. It changed how the game worked at the table, if you were using the rules as written previously.
Umm, no.
Just...no.
First, you're missing a lot of the rules here...and at best you've simply failed to realize a few things.
1 attack in the 1st round, and the 2nd round you get 1 attack in the first pass. Multiple attacks are resolved later in the round in initiative / speed order. I'm not sure where the "go in advance of any initiative dice" came from, especially if you're speaking of melee fighters.
Quote from: Blackhand;639060Umm, no.
Just...no.
What a stunning refutation.
Quote from: Akrasia;638999You probably are better off with the reprint, as the binding on the original printing is famously awful. The recent version should survive being opened more than three times.
That makes me happier. :)
I agree with your other post btw. UA isn't terrible. I don't hate it. It's like 2e's Player Option I suppose - good ideas and bad non-playtested stuff all mixed up.
But then I started with 2e. Only got 1e fairly recently. I like 1e, it's a very cool game, allthough a bit fiddly here and there (but so is 2e and well I'm a 2e guy, I guess).
Sounds like Frank was mixing up UA (Unearthed Arcana) and OA (Oriental Adventures). We already know the latter was ghost-written by Zeb Cook (which isn't really surprising, since it reads pretty much like a dry-run for AD&D2E), but the former is made up almost entirely of material that was previously published (most of it 2-3 years before UA was released) in Dragon magazine under Gary's byline (except for the Demihuman Deities section, which IIRC is credited in UA as having been written by Roger Moore). Unless Frank is saying that those articles were also ghost-written, which I guess is possible, but doesn't seem very likely. Especially since 2E dropped or heavily modified most of UA's additions (if Zeb had actually ghost-written this stuff, why would he then go back and delete it?).
Quote from: Exploderwizard;639023Do you have a page reference for the whole multiple attacks automatically wins iniative rule? That doesn't sound familiar.
DMG, p 62-3, Initiative for Creatures With Multiple Attack Routines
Quote from: EOTB;639010There are lots of reasons, but the #1 is that weapon specialization is much more powerful - there is no reason to create a generalist fighter.
Also, it completely upends the early level play dynamic, because in 1st edition someone with multiple attacks in a round goes before the initiative die is rolled. And, in 1st edition, if you have 3/2 attacks you get your round of 2 attacks on the 1st round of combat.
So, if you have a 1st level fighter specialized in long sword, you get to go in advance of any initiative die on the first round of pretty much any combat, unless you are facing another PC class that is eligible for specialization, and any hit on a 1+1HD (or less) creature is often a kill, with the damage bonuses.
Yes, there are ways to houserule it, but if played as written it upset the balance of low-level play. It changed how the game worked at the table, if you were using the rules as written previously.
Quote from: Blackhand;639060Umm, no.
Just...no.
First, you're missing a lot of the rules here...and at best you've simply failed to realize a few things.
1 attack in the 1st round, and the 2nd round you get 1 attack in the first pass. Multiple attacks are resolved later in the round in initiative / speed order. I'm not sure where the "go in advance of any initiative dice" came from, especially if you're speaking of melee fighters.
I realize things fine, lol. I think you're getting your 2nd edition mixed up with your 1st Edition. While it is true that 2nd edition modules, monsters and settings could be used interchangeably with 1st edition, for the most part, and vice-versa, there were differences in the combat engines that made a material difference to how things worked tactically. 1st Edition, played using most of the RAW, did not feel the same as 2nd edition core.
Fighters were weakened by 2nd edition core, especially in relation to magic-users, by getting rid of so many of these fiddly bits that worked together to help even combat out between the two classes.
KenHR gave the page reference, but I'll quote the passages for convenience, in case not everyone has a 1E DMG handy. Emphasis supplied to the sections that show a fighter with multiple attacks would go before initiative, and also that a 1st level fighter specialized in long sword would get 2 attacks in round 1, and 1 attack in round 2 (this was also nerfed in 2nd edition).
Quote from: DMG pgs. 62-63 - Initiative For Creatures With Multiple Attack RoutinesWhen one or more creatures involved in combat are permitted to use their attack routines twice or more often during the round, then the following initiative determinants are employed. When the attack routine may be used twice, then allow the side with this advantage to attack FIRST and LAST with those members of its group who have this advantage. If it is possessed by both parties, the initiative roll determines which group strikes FIRST and THIRD, which group strikes SECOND and LAST. If one or both groups have members allowed only one attack routine, it will always fall in the middle of the other attacks, the order determined by dicing for initiative, when necessary. If one party has the ability to employ its attack routines thrice, then the other party dices for initiative to see if it, or the multi-routine group, strikes first in the mid-point of the round. Extrapolate for routines which occur four or more times in a round by following the method above. Note that a routine is the attack or attacks usual to the creature concerned, i.e. a weapon (or weapons) for a character, a claw/claw/bite routine for a bear (with incidental; damage assessed as it occurs - the hug, for example).A 12th level fighter is allowed attack routines twice in every odd numbered melee round, for example, and this moves up to three per round if a haste spell is cast upon the fighter. Damage from successful attacks is assessed when the "to hit" score is made and damage determined, the creature so taking domage having to survive it in order to follow its attack routine.
Note that when this passage is referring to a 12th level fighter, UA and weapon specialization did not exist yet. in the PHB, a 12th level fighter gets...3/2 attacks (PHB pg. 25).
So, weapon specialization took an ability previously not gained until 7th level, and gave it to the 1st level fighter. That was a big bump, absolutely.
Quote from: KenHR;639061What a stunning refutation.
Blackhand really has no idea...
[QUOTE AD&D DMG]
Originally Posted by DMG pgs. 62-63 - Initiative For Creatures With Multiple Attack Routines
When one or more creatures involved in combat are permitted to use their attack routines twice or more often during the round, then the following initiative determinants are employed. When the attack routine may be used twice, then allow the side with this advantage to attack FIRST and LAST with those members of its group who have this advantage. If it is possessed by both parties, the initiative roll determines which group strikes FIRST and THIRD, which group strikes SECOND and LAST. If one or both groups have members allowed only one attack routine, it will always fall in the middle of the other attacks, the order determined by dicing for initiative, when necessary. If one party has the ability to employ its attack routines thrice, then the other party dices for initiative to see if it, or the multi-routine group, strikes first in the mid-point of the round. Extrapolate for routines which occur four or more times in a round by following the method above. Note that a routine is the attack or attacks usual to the creature concerned, i.e. a weapon (or weapons) for a character, a claw/claw/bite routine for a bear (with incidental; damage assessed as it occurs - the hug, for example).A 12th level fighter is allowed attack routines twice in every odd numbered melee round, for example, and this moves up to three per round if a haste spell is cast upon the fighter. Damage from successful attacks is assessed when the "to hit" score is made and damage determined, the creature so taking domage having to survive it in order to follow its attack routine.
[END QUOTE]
The confusion here seems to be in classifying monster and character attacks differently when it comes to what constitutes a routine.
The way I interpret it, is that the normal number of attacks a character or monster can make in a round is thier routine. Thus the extra attack granted to a 12th level fighter in every odd numbered round is part of his routine.
Thus the fighter would only attack first automatically if hasted or otherwise sped up.
Applying the rule evenly to monsters and characters either means that all monsters with 2 or more attacks automatically attack first or that the fighter doesn't automatically win initiative just because his routine includes additional attacks at higher levels.
This also means that a wizard could never ever get even a 1 segment spell off against a fighter. That seems a bit off and not in the spirit of the rules to me.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;639338The confusion here seems to be in classifying monster and character attacks differently when it comes to what constitutes a routine.
The way I interpret it, is that the normal number of attacks a character or monster can make in a round is thier routine. Thus the extra attack granted to a 12th level fighter in every odd numbered round is part of his routine.
"Note that a routine is the attack or attacks usual to the creature concerned, i.e. a weapon (or weapons) for a character, a claw/claw/bite routine for a bear (with incidental; damage assessed as it occurs - the hug, for example).A 12th level fighter is allowed attack routines twice in every odd numbered melee round, for example..."
A weapon attack is a routine; it is explicitly stated that a 12th level fighter has two attack routines every odd-numbered round right there. A c/c/b attack is a routine. It's not worded in the best manner, but it's pretty clear from that passage.
As for the interaction with spell casting...I've honestly never really thought it through, so someone with more expertise can chime in on that. But EOTB is correct.
Quote from: KenHR;639350"Note that a routine is the attack or attacks usual to the creature concerned, i.e. a weapon (or weapons) for a character, a claw/claw/bite routine for a bear (with incidental; damage assessed as it occurs - the hug, for example).A 12th level fighter is allowed attack routines twice in every odd numbered melee round, for example..."
A weapon attack is a routine; it is explicitly stated that a 12th level fighter has two attack routines every odd-numbered round right there. A c/c/b attack is a routine. It's not worded in the best manner, but it's pretty clear from that passage.
As for the interaction with spell casting...I've honestly never really thought it through, so someone with more expertise can chime in on that. But EOTB is correct.
It just seems a bit silly. What of a lizardman? His routine could be a single weapon attack OR c/c/b. Don't forget about monks. They get the 3/2 attack rate much earlier than fighters with thier unarmed attacks. That would mean any median level monk trumps spellcasting.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;639366It just seems a bit silly. What of a lizardman? His routine could be a single weapon attack OR c/c/b. Don't forget about monks. They get the 3/2 attack rate much earlier than fighters with thier unarmed attacks. That would mean any median level monk trumps spellcasting.
Think of the combat round as an abstraction, not a blow-by-blow retelling of a duel, and it becomes easier to swallow. It's how many wargames work (yes, there are exceptions like the old Tobruk game's depicting the impact of every shell hit vs. the original Squad Leader's simpler design-for-effect system), by abstracting things.
Again, with regard to the interaction with spellcasting, I don't have the mental fortitude to go thru the ADDICT document right now. The interaction of weapons, spells and initiative in AD&D was always a bit kludgy in the RAW, so yeah, your scenario could well be the result...I honestly have never really thought it through (and my group's spellcasters rarely cast while they're in melee, so it almost never comes up).
It appears the intent was that the rule about multiple attack routines wrapping around single attack routines was only supposed to apply in melee, and shouldn't be extrapolated to include spellcasting, missile-fire, or other non-melee actions (i.e. a bow with a ROF2 does not always shoot first against a spell-caster, someone using a magic item, attempting to raise an alarm, etc.).
Quote from: T. Foster;639379It appears the intent was that the rule about multiple attack routines wrapping around single attack routines was only supposed to apply in melee, and shouldn't be extrapolated to include spellcasting, missile-fire, or other non-melee actions (i.e. a bow with a ROF2 does not always shoot first against a spell-caster, someone using a magic item, attempting to raise an alarm, etc.).
I'd agree with that, pretty much. A bow's 2 attacks/round is a single routine, in effect, right?
I did check ADDICT, and it says the first attack of a multiple attack routine does get a chance to interrupt a spellcaster. Again, abstraction...the multiple attacks represent highly tuned combat reflexes among other things.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;639366It just seems a bit silly. What of a lizardman? His routine could be a single weapon attack OR c/c/b. Don't forget about monks. They get the 3/2 attack rate much earlier than fighters with thier unarmed attacks. That would mean any median level monk trumps spellcasting.
It doesn't seem silly to me, since that's the way I learned to play.
Yes, a lizard man could either get a weapon attack, or, get a c/c/b attack that happened all together (not 1 claw at the beginning of a round, 1 claw in the middle of a round, and 1 bite at the end).
Yes, a wizard would have problems getting even a 1 segment spell off against a fighter with 3/2 attacks - but that's why the DMG says that M-Us casting spells in combat are idiots, and they should be using wands or other charged magic items in combat at first opportunity. Or, somebody should hang back and block an attacker off from the M-U.
Yes, Monks were (and are) the ultimate M-U killing machine. Their increased movement rate allows them to flank and get into the rear of an enemy party, open handed attacks get a whopping +4 to their attack roll on the weapons vs. AC chart against AC type 10 (note AC type 10, not AC 10), and their ability to stun any creature if their roll exceeds the minimum by 5, all work together to allow monks to generally fuck up wizards 1-on-1 by mid levels. (Let alone their "automatic kill %" for any hit, based on opponents AC - and MU AC usually sucks).
Getting rid of all the fiddly bits of 1E accentuated the "wizard problem" that people complain about.
These things are part of why 1E plays different in many ways, and why UA was loathed by many people.
If you play 1E classes with a 2E combat system, than no, you probably don't understand.
Quote from: EOTB;639383It doesn't seem silly to me, since that's the way I learned to play.
Yes, a lizard man could either get a weapon attack, or, get a c/c/b attack that happened all together (not 1 claw at the beginning of a round, 1 claw in the middle of a round, and 1 bite at the end).
Yes, a wizard would have problems getting even a 1 segment spell off against a fighter with 3/2 attacks - but that's why the DMG says that M-Us casting spells in combat are idiots, and they should be using wands or other charged magic items in combat at first opportunity. Or, somebody should hang back and block an attacker off from the M-U.
Yes, Monks were (and are) the ultimate M-U killing machine. Their increased movement rate allows them to flank and get into the rear of an enemy party, open handed attacks get a whopping +4 to their attack roll on the weapons vs. AC chart against AC type 10 (note AC type 10, not AC 10), and their ability to stun any creature if their roll exceeds the minimum by 5, all work together to allow monks to generally fuck up wizards 1-on-1 by mid levels. (Let alone their "automatic kill %" for any hit, based on opponents AC - and MU AC usually sucks).
Getting rid of all the fiddly bits of 1E accentuated the "wizard problem" that people complain about.
These things are part of why 1E plays different in many ways, and why UA was loathed by many people.
If you play 1E classes with a 2E combat system, than no, you probably don't understand.
Wands are not an entitlement in AD&D, so saying "get a wand" isn't really a solution.
I also believe in the "always give a monster an even break" axiom. If a troll is not entitled to first attack at a rate of 3/1 then neither is a PC with a rate of 3/2 due to legalese shennanigans about the meaning of "routine" .
I ruled intiative this way long before 2E was released.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;639396I also believe in the "always give a monster an even break" axiom. If a troll is not entitled to first attack at a rate of 3/1 then neither is a PC with a rate of 3/2 due to legalese shennanigans about the meaning of "routine" .
There aren't any "legalese shenanigans." It's very clear from the text what an attack routine is.
Quote from: T. Foster;639379It appears the intent was that the rule about multiple attack routines wrapping around single attack routines was only supposed to apply in melee, and shouldn't be extrapolated to include spellcasting, missile-fire, or other non-melee actions (i.e. a bow with a ROF2 does not always shoot first against a spell-caster, someone using a magic item, attempting to raise an alarm, etc.).
The DMG specifically calls spellcasting and turning undead "attack routines".
Quote from: DMG pg. 63 - Inflicting DamageExcept as noted under Ties, above, damage (or the general results of some attack routine such as a turning of undead or casting of a slow spell) is inflicted upon the reacting party prior...
Missile fire is a single attack routine, just like a lizard man's C/C/B is. The multiple attack is a weapon-based ability available to anyone able to use the weapon, of any level. It is not like the multiple attack ability of a high level fighter, or a specialist, which is predicated on a level of skill above and beyond the normal yokel. It is clear missile fire doesn't get first and last treatment, similar to a 12th level fighter, simply because a high dexterity gives you an initiative bonus when using missile weapons - which would be pointless if you automatically went first like a 12th level fighter with a long sword.
So I think all of those things are included - I don't think the first and last of multiple attack routines is limited to where both participants are using melee weapons. A person who enjoys the first and last benefit of multiple attack routines gets to apply that smack against anyone of his choosing, who is within 10' of him at the start of the round (and to which he has a clear path), regardless of what activities the smackee is engaging in.
Anyway - this is getting far afield from UA, but I suppose is necessary to back up the assertion that, yes, UA fucked with the game. That doesn't mean better or worse - that is in the eye of the beholder. But the mechanical changes were significant.
And there you have it.
Good find, EOTB. I don't like that rule, but I guess it's at least some comfort knowing that it's an actual bad rule and not just an ambiguously explained one :/
Quote from: T. Foster;639415Good find, EOTB. I don't like that rule, but I guess it's at least some comfort knowing that it's an actual bad rule and not just an ambiguously explained one :/
I love it, but then I take extreme satisfaction when I see a fighter manage to close with a M-U and take him down over the course of a few rounds, like a branch getting put into a wood chipper.
M-U's control the battlefield by operating outside of the 10' envelope. They have an imbalanced strength advantage there, by design, relative to other classes. This is offset, in part, by making them dependent upon others - either party members, conjured creatures, etc. - to give them room to operate. Collapse the pocket around a M-U and taking him down is sweet reward.
Thanks for that clarification EOTB. (It seems that this is yet another aspect of AD&D where I got things wrong for years and years.) I can see now why UA weapon specialization is such a big deal.
One question: How does the fighter's ability to attack creatures with less than a d8 HD once/per level every round (PHB, p. 25) affect initiative? I assume that this is treated as a single 'attack routine'?
Hi every one I am not understand what I am post
Australia Immigration (http://immigrationoverseas.com/Australia.aspx)
Quote from: KenHR;639409And there you have it.
Your sig is very appropriate to this thread.
JG
Quote from: Akrasia;639608One question: How does the fighter's ability to attack creatures with less than a d8 HD once/per level every round (PHB, p. 25) affect initiative? I assume that this is treated as a single 'attack routine'?
That's how I run it, with a bit of an added house rule that you can only get one of these types of attacks per round. So if you are a 12th level fighter, you can off 12 normal kobolds at the start of a round, and at the end you could get your attack routine against a more powerful creature. But you couldn't take out another 12 kobolds (for a total of 24) in the same round.
The book doesn't specify that ruling, however.
Quote from: James Gillen;639621Your sig is very appropriate to this thread.
JG
Ha! Indeed.
Quote from: EOTB;639423I love it, but then I take extreme satisfaction when I see a fighter manage to close with a M-U and take him down over the course of a few rounds, like a branch getting put into a wood chipper.
M-U's control the battlefield by operating outside of the 10' envelope. They have an imbalanced strength advantage there, by design, relative to other classes. This is offset, in part, by making them dependent upon others - either party members, conjured creatures, etc. - to give them room to operate. Collapse the pocket around a M-U and taking him down is sweet reward.
I thinks it's funny you think there was any actual design in the 1e combat system.
The whole 1e combat model evolved organically anything that appears to resemble class balance or combat roles is purely co-incidental.
This thread reads like an RPG version of the Compenhagen Interpretation
Ah, there he is. Now this is a complete RPGsite thread.
I never cared for pretty much anything that was in UA.
RPGPundit
Quote from: KenHR;639835Ah, there he is. Now this is a complete RPGsite thread.
Naw, no wall of text.
Quote from: Planet Algol;640035Naw, no wall of text.
That a common thing there?
Quote from: Planet Algol;638793I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to insist on hearing Gene Weigel's side of the story...
My side of the story was that "I WAS THERE" but this is only if you wish upon a star that Dave Arneson is the one true (((SINGS))) DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE... AND... DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE...
Now the universe is right again.
(http://cdn.meme.li/instances/500x/50621579.jpg)
Gene is like SuperGrover 2.0
He shows up.
Or, in this case, he showed up.
And he used his super powers of....Observation!
http://youtu.be/SmgUo58JUKA