AD&D 1st Edition - Combat (redux)

Completely changed how I think of combat.
I've been doing it wrong for YEARS.
Thanks for making this, seriously.

Yeah we used those tables twice and never again after that

Terrific eye-opening video. Explains something difficult in a clear and understandable way!

Thanks for the vid. But I think I need more examples!

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?

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.

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.

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.

Great video!!

I love all this guys videos.

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.

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 named my female thief Arlanni 🙂

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.)?

Count me among the many who played this wrong since the late 70s :)
Thanks for this :)

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.

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.

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! 👍

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.

OMG stop moving the camera around! Use a tripod and get it steady. I can't watch this.

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.

Well done, sir!

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?

OMG... I have been playing wrong 30 years. Good catch!

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.