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

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.