D&D 1E AD&D1e Initiative woes - how to interpret Acrobat-Thief's Evasion?

I'll be running a 1e one-shot for some friends who've never played the edition before, and I'm trying to reacquaint myself with rules I haven't used in a long time.

What does "having the initiative" mean?

The context is the Acrobat-Thief's Evasion ability which reads:

Evasion enables the character to opt to evade attacks directed at him or her - just as magic resistance would work with respect to magical attack forms directed at the individual (or within a relatively small area, such as a few square feet, from which the thief-acrobat could easily remove himself or herself), or from melee combat - in the case where the thief-acrobat has the initiative, but only in this case. In any event, the chance for success cannot exceed a base of 60%, adjusted for dexterity and/or race. Evasion routines of any sort require 1 segment maximum to perform.

Click to expand...

Is this describing a passive feature like Magic Resistance which requires no action be taken?
Or is this describing a 1-segment action the acrobat takes instead of, say, attacking? Like the equivalent of 5e's Dodge action?

So if initiative is rolled – 1e uses the "you roll initiative for the OTHER side, and low goes first" – and the PCs receive initiative 4, while the monsters receive initiative 2... then would the Acrobat-Thief be able to benefit from Evasion?

That does seem correct, as the 2e's Tumbling Non-Weapon Proficiency has similar language- you can only benefit from the +4 bonus to AC if you act before anyone who might want to attack you.

Interesting. I guess the section "just as magic resistance" complicates things a bit.

Without it, I'd (basically) say the procedure would be: Thief-Acrobat announces he wants to evade an attack he expects to occur before the round starts, Initiative is rolled for, the round starts and the T-A can try to evade that attack if he can act before the attacker, as decided by who has the Initiative.

With it, I'd say it could be argued that Evasion is just something the T-A can use at any time in a round, just like Magic Resistance would apply at any time in a round, provided he can act sooner than an attacker.

I was just looking at this recently, and I agree with Ilgatto.

It looks to me like it would apply anytime the Thief (or the Thief's side, for standard group initiative) has won initiative, and would give the Thief the indicated chance to avoid/negate a directed attack by tumbling/dodging.

Any given evasion action also only consumes no more than 1 segment if you're using segments.

ilgatto said:

Interesting. I guess the section "just as magic resistance" complicates things a bit.

Without it, I'd (basically) say the procedure would be: Thief-Acrobat announces he wants to evade an attack he expects to occur before the round starts, Initiative is rolled for, the round starts and the T-A can try to evade that attack if he can act before the attacker, as decided by who has the Initiative.

With it, I'd say it could be argued that Evasion is just something the T-A can use at any time in a round, just like Magic Resistance would apply at any time in a round, provided he can act sooner than an attacker.

Click to expand...

Mannahnin said:

I was just looking at this recently, and I agree with Ilgatto.

It looks to me like it would apply anytime the Thief (or the Thief's side, for standard group initiative) has won initiative, and would give the Thief the indicated chance to avoid/negate a directed attack by tumbling/dodging.

Any given evasion action also only consumes no more than 1 segment if you're using segments.

Click to expand...

Huh, so if I'm explaining this to a player (who has gaming experience, but no 1e experience), how do I explain that narratively?

If you've lost initiative then that whole combat you are unable to use Evasion whatsoever and there's nothing you can do about it, because......

Or is initiative re-rolled each round in 1e? So it's sort of like Evasion might be "switching on / off" whether it's available during the fight?

Quickleaf said:

Huh, so if I'm explaining this to a player (who has gaming experience, but no 1e experience), how do I explain that narratively?

If you've lost initiative then that whole combat you are unable to use Evasion whatsoever and there's nothing you can do about it, because......

Or is initiative re-rolled each round in 1e? So it's sort of like Evasion might be "switching on / off" whether it's available during the fight?

Click to expand...

The latter. You re-roll initiative every round.

So yes, Evasion "switches on", as in "is a thing you can do" based on whether you're operating that touch bit faster than the enemy and get the chance to start jumping and tumbling around before they actually shoot at you (or whatever directed attack they make). If the enemy has won the initiative in a given round, you're a little bit flat-footed and didn't have time to coil and spring and jump out of the way this round.

1E initiative is a quagmire. That said, the initial, most basic step to determining initiative by the book in 1E is that each side rolls 1d6. The side with the higher die roll has the initiative. The number indicated on the die then OSTENSIBLY indicates the segment on which your opponent will act. So if the PC's roll 5 and the monsters roll 2, the PC's have the initiative and will act on segment 2, while the monsters act on segment 5. That, then gets totally fudged in a hundred ways for a hundred different reasons which man was never meant to understand - but you WILL have established overall which side has initiative regardless of what individuals on either side may or may not do, or who might ultimately end up acting/attacking first despite having won or lost initiative. If the T/A then is on the side which won initiative, then they ARE using their evasion ability. If their side lost initiative then they are NOT using their evasion ability. If you didn't WIN initiative because it's actually tied then, again, evasion won't be getting used.

Note, however, that it does take 1 segment to perform any evasion and that IS going to have consequences in specific instances once you get further into the DEEP pile of junk that is the rest of 1E initiative. Simply winning initiative isn't the end of it - the other specifics of 1E initiative might apply if an opponent has some means of advancing their attack so that it happens prior to the ACTUAL final initiative result for the action being performed. Also, evasion is not certain in any case, it's still a percentage roll for success.

So, assume we have rolls: PC's 4, enemies 3. PC actions that aren't otherwise having their initiative priority changed by more specific procedures happen on 3. The evasion takes 1 segment so it'll take place on 4. If an opponent has an action that takes place on or before segment 4 that evasion still won't be in time to avoid it. Most of the time it won't be a real concern because, simply by losing initiative we know that the opponents are highly UN-likely to have actions that COULD be adjusted to happen prior to the T/A's evasion. But unlikely doesn't equal impossible.

But 1E initiative is FIENDISHLY hard to understand and apply reasonably and consistently because of all of it's special procedures and exceptions. MOST people don't actually use it as-written. They have some other way of handling initiative in 1E.

1E initiative is also not cyclic - it is re-rolled every round and is actually only at its most complex when the d6 rolls are TIED, so yes, it is going to change every round whether evasion is going to potentially apply at all. Overall it's roughly a 41% chance for a side to WIN initiative, and then the T/A has to make the % check to succeed at evading. That definitely limits the chances of it ever happening, but when it does happen it makes the character flat-out untouchable by weapon attacks and most spells in that round, and that's incredibly powerful.

Man in the Funny Hat said:

But 1E initiative is FIENDISHLY hard to understand and apply reasonably and consistently because of all of it's special procedures and exceptions. MOST people don't actually use it as-written. They have some other way of handling initiative in 1E.

Click to expand...

I agree with everything you wrote, with one exception.

I am not sure that "MOST" is correct. I think that "ALL" is the correct term there. I mean, maybe (MAYBE?) there is some poor soul out there that has actually run 1e with all the exceptions, clarifications, bizarre additions, and equivocations about initiative. Like the people who read ADDICT for fun and think to themselves, "Self, I'd like to be an actuary, but that sounds way too exciting."

But I have yet to meet that person who has run AD&D with all the possible initiative rules, procedures, and exceptions turned "on."

Snarf Zagyg said:

I agree with everything you wrote, with one exception.

I am not sure that "MOST" is correct. I think that "ALL" is the correct term there. I mean, maybe (MAYBE?) there is some poor soul out there that has actually run 1e with all the exceptions, clarifications, bizarre additions, and equivocations about initiative. Like the people who read ADDICT for fun and think to themselves, "Self, I'd like to be an actuary, but that sounds way too exciting."

But I have yet to meet that person who has run AD&D with all the possible initiative rules, procedures, and exceptions turned "on."

Click to expand...

I only say "most" because if I DO say "all" then someone comes out of the woodwork claiming that they run it exactly btb (except that they do this and that different, of course...) and the system as written is perfect and easy to use and everyone needs to love it right now or be judged. And then I need to point out that people who have worked at it are still arguing it's exact workings 50 years later and it all becomes a whole other thing.

Man in the Funny Hat said:

I only say "most" because if I DO say "all" then someone comes out of the woodwork claiming that they run it exactly btb (except that they do this and that different, of course...) and the system as written is perfect and easy to use and everyone needs to love it right now or be judged. And then I need to point out that people who have worked at it are still arguing it's exact workings 50 years later and it all becomes a whole other thing.

Click to expand...

Fair.

I guess that there's always that guy.

And I've never been that guy in any thread. Never. And if you find evidence to the contrary, you're wrong.