Initiative & Spellcasting

[Nagora]

Yes, but you've acknowledged to me in the past that "the idea that everyone acts <at the beginning of the round> indicated by the dice is not one that appears anywhere in the book", either. But you're OK with that because you feel it's a minor inference required to make everything work.

Well, I've moved on a bit since then. I do now think that the idea that everyone acts at the beginning of the round is in the book. Specifically, the introductory text on p60.

That's not a gigantic leap of inference. It's pretty minor.

Major effects, though.

The repeated references to initiative determining when an important action can be attempted in the PHB and DMG make it clear that spell casting occurs per the initiative dice and not on segment 1. This also makes casting more dangerous as longer casting times lead to a greater chance of spell disruption.

Neither statement is true, IMO.

[EOTB]

Personally, I think we should make a K&KA rule that initiative threads can only go in the house rules section.

There is no btb initiative. I agree with Foster on this one. The books hold a bunch of info unsuccessfully tied together. Its a legit failure of the technical writing in 1E. There's nothing there that can't be interpreted to different conclusions.

Which, if you're TSR changing the OD&D way of running things for AD&D, is a big fat "F" on the execution. It's imperative when trying to institute a change, that what is being changed is crystal clear. Otherwise people seek to connect back to what has come before (which was OD&D init, Nagora-style).

Major effects, though.

Your inference and mine both have major effects - it's about when things happen in a round. How could any be minor?

Specifically, the introductory text on p60.

A different page? 60 is before the combat section, hearing noise and stuff. But this must also be an inference of some sort, if you meant the start of the combat section on pg 61, because I don't see any clear language to the effect you're describing.

[francisca]

Personally, I think we should make a K&KA rule that initiative threads can only go in the house rules section.

Would we have the debate in the House or BtB forum?

[T. Foster]

The only anomaly in the +d6 interpretation seems to be timing of actions that carry over into a second round, or that carry over from surprise into regular combat, be it spellcasting or movement. Sure that requires a judgment call since it's not addressed in the published text, but at least IMO it's not a very difficult one: the action continues from the previous round, with, effectively, segment 1 of round two counting as segment 11, segment 2 as segment 12, and so on. In effect this allows ongoing/carried-over actions to contravene the normal initiative procedure, but that's okay because the character performing that action doesn't get a second action once the carried-over action finishes so no advantage is gained. This is an extrapolation, but it's a pretty reasonable and workable one.

[Nagora]

The only anomaly in the +d6 interpretation seems to be timing of actions that carry over into a second round, or that carry over from surprise into regular combat, be it spellcasting or movement.

There's a nice irony in that the system needlessly causes something to happen that it's bad at handling, with medium-level spells routinely being carried into the next round, creating the paradox of people who have initiative engaged in fast things having to act after someone that lost initiative but is doing something that takes longer.

It's true that consistency is a major play requirement in combat where characters may die, but there's a lot to be said for a system which makes sense to the players too.

[Ska]

Foster is correct and it is how I DM it.
It actually really works well where spell casting carries over into the next round. Initiative is still rolled if there are other party members while the MU continues to cast his spell. His action in the next round is the completion of the spell.

I find btb discussion helpful in working out what the actual rules were.
I think if Gygax had simply written that the low roll wins initiative it would have cleared up a great deal of confusion.

Again, the PHB and DMG clearly state initiative dice are rolled to determine actions taking place that matter begin. It is an abstract system meant to be
used with speed during actual play. This includes spell casting.

Casting beginning on segment 1 is not btb, and in fact cannot be found in any AD&D book. Using initiative to determine when spell casting and other actions begin is found in the core books. Logic would seem to dictate the initiative system where dice are rolled for actions including spellcasting are more btb then Nagora's argument that spells start at the start of any and all rounds.
If I am wrong, than this is the place to bring it up as this is a btb forum.

[geneweigel]

This is from the PLAYERS HANDBOOK (1978):

OBEDIENCE
This aspect of play has three facets. The leader and caller of a party might
order one course of action while various players state that their characters
do otherwise. Your DM will treat such situations as confused and muddled,
being certain to penalize the group accordingly.

AND

ORGANIZATION
Organize your party by showing which characters are where. Show
marching order for a 10' passage, a 20' passage, door openings, etc.
Always prepare for rear actions as well as frontal combats. Assign one
individual as leader. This character will "call", i.e. tell the referee where
the party will go and what they will do.

If these rules are ignored then is it really BTB?

Accordingly, spell casters have to have a plan to tell the leader ahead of time instead of this "Presto of the cartoon" routine that some people give of random "Felix the Cat" fuck ups. "This is is my missile", "this is my touch attack", etc.

I've seen many "true giveaway" (not treasure) games of letting everyone talk with an unknown door right in front of them. Am I alone here?

Likewise all this talk of "dice" is irrelevant BTB there are no dice. Its just a coincidental subsumed percentage so therefore all the dice talk is moot. Even initiative is not on the table as BTB thing if you think it through. Its just another technicality of timed situations:

From the PLAYERS HANDBOOK (1978):

INITIATIVE (SNIP)

The initiative check is typically made with 2 six-sided dice, 1d6 for the
party, and another of a different size or color for the creatures
encountered. This check is made each round of play where first action is a
factor.

[Nagora]

Foster is correct and it is how I DM it.
It actually really works well where spell casting carries over into the next round. Initiative is still rolled if there are other party members while the MU continues to cast his spell. His action in the next round is the completion of the spell.

Which breaks all sorts of things, as previously discussed.

I think if Gygax had simply written that the low roll wins initiative it would have cleared up a great deal of confusion.

Well, perhaps you should try thinking about what he did write instead of wishing otherwise.

Again, the PHB and DMG clearly state initiative dice are rolled to determine actions taking place that matter begin. It is an abstract system meant to be used with speed during actual play. This includes spell casting.

It has abstract aspects to it but "1seg=6 seconds" is not abstract, which is why there's rules to mesh the two.

Casting beginning on segment 1 is not btb, and in fact cannot be found in any AD&D book.

No, not explicitly. It is implied by the lack of ANY rules whatsoever to support otherwise, and the inclusion of rules which do not work unless that is the case (interruption whether by melee or otherwise). It is also implied by the description of the melee round on p60 which clearly states that a one minute round is filled with actions. Indeed it is hard to even imagine how anyone came to propose the d6+ system which so clearly requires the exact opposite of the AD&D combat round. It is much better suited to very short rounds - say segments instead of rounds.

Using initiative to determine when spell casting and other actions begin is found in the core books.

Sure. Just not in the form you have imagined.

Logic would seem to dictate the initiative system where dice are rolled for actions including spellcasting are more btb then Nagora's argument that spells start at the start of any and all rounds.

The effect is the same. If two things are measured in relation to eachother then it makes no difference if one of them is fixed or both are random. The chance of you rolling the same score on a d6 as I do is the same as your chance to roll a fixed 6 on one die. In the same way, there is no need for everything in the abstract round to be randomly shifting about and in fact doing so causes a lot of problems which the d6+ system has to patch up with additional new rules.

You keep claiming that logic is on your side yet there is not a single case where the d6+ method has to introduce new rules to cope with its own deficiencies which the simple ruling that movement etc. begin at the start of the round does not fix. The logic of Occam's Razor suggests that a system that introduces four or five new rules (and still doesn't quite work) is less likely to be a correct interpretation than a reading that requires one, one which is in keeping with the tone of the text.

We are never told that a person with 9" movement may not get a 9" move in during a round.
We are never told that a person casting a 6 segment spell may not get it completed in a round.
We are never told that a weapon might strike a caster before they begin. We are never told if, when this happens, whether the spell is lost or simply casting prevented.
We are never told that if a caster might complete a spell begun on a previous round that they may (or may not) cast another spell this round.
We are never told whether a caster who's spell has spilt over needs to roll initiative on that next round.
It is not explained that it may be possible for someone casting a 1 segment spell who has rolled and won initiative with a 6 to fail to act before something that happens on segment 5, nor is there any text which would justify or hint at such a strange ruling.
We are never told that everyone stands around waiting to act. In fact we're explicitly told the exact opposite.

I don't mind anyone having a pop at my interpretation of the book system but if you think that d6+ is anywhere remotely close to the book system then you are off your head. On top of which, it's a pretty bad system anyway.

[EOTB]

The only anomaly in the +d6 interpretation seems to be timing of actions that carry over into a second round, or that carry over from surprise into regular combat, be it spellcasting or movement.

There's a nice irony in that the system needlessly causes something to happen that it's bad at handling, with medium-level spells routinely being carried into the next round, creating the paradox of people who have initiative engaged in fast things having to act after someone that lost initiative but is doing something that takes longer.

It's true that consistency is a major play requirement in combat where characters may die, but there's a lot to be said for a system which makes sense to the players too.

Re: surprise, it's just another action, right? This is like how putting the words phantasmal force around an ad-hoc action suddenly causes people to wonder how to run it.

There is no anomaly with actions carrying over from surprise into the round.

Initiative is for people without an action at the start of a round, not those continuously acting from the round before.

Rolls quantify unknowns. We don't roll for knowns.

Initiative has nothing to do with who finishes first. The only factor in who finishes first is how long something takes. Of course when you start an action has a secondary effect, but slowly starting an action that takes very little time is not supposed to yield necessarily to quickly starting an action that takes a long time.

If someone has 2 segments of surprise and wants to cast a 4 segment spell they finish in segment 2 of round 1. They started an action prior to anyone being able to contest it. When everyone else gains the ability to act, there is an existing constant - the spellcaster is unloading a spell in 2 segments, and the only question is if someone else will do something to interrupt what is otherwise going to happen.

This is the same for someone taking an action longer than a round to complete. No, they don't have to roll initiative in the next round. They're acting already, continuously.

No it isn't broken that someone who wins initiative may go after a continuous process already in motion at the beginning of the round. The initiative isn't against that prior, completing action - it's against others who likewise have no prior course of action in process.

If there was no opposition starting an action that round; if the only opposition was a spellcaster continuing a spell from a previous round, then no initiative would be rolled - the DM would simply ask what everyone was doing and compare durations - any physical attack would take place immediately; no one is fighting back, so no circling or feinting is required. If trying to cast a spell compare its casting time to the known finish point of the other action in-process. Etc.

When you start has a minor effect on when you finish, but what you're trying to do and how intrinsically long that takes has a primary effect on when you finish.

Against actions already in process, the only question is whether a counter-action finishes before the action in process does. When the counter-action started isn't the point; starting earlier always helps, but is not determinative.

Someone upset that they could win initiative against a MUs summoned mooks, and act before the mooks, but also going after the completion of a spell in process for more than a round because that fixed time terminates very early in this round, is acting entitled.

This isn't logic. It can only be a break in logic if one starts with the premise that winning initiative means always finishing before the things that can hurt you, hurt you.

That's not promised anywhere in AD&D.

[Ska]

Nagora I am having trouble even following your argument concerning btb actions when you simply gloss over actual printed statements contained in the PHB and DMG. You may not like that the language in the core rule book contradicts what you might wish it contained, but to ignore what is actually printed lessons the force of your argument.

In simplest terms, the core rule books do contain language that points out when spell casting starts (initiative roll) and do not mention spell casting starting on segment 1. You might not like this fact, but never the less, it is reality. Because of this, I argue the btb method of determining when spell casting begins is more likely the printed rules in the core rule books and not an idea espoused by someone but nowhere written in the core rule books.

Even though the world map has the word Africa on the continent of Africa, my insistence it really is Tallahasse, Florida and the map labeling is irrelevant does not change the fact the world map says the word "Africa". Perhaps you are correct and perhaps Gygax, when he wrote the printed words that initiative determined when spell casting begins, really meant through properly rearranging his words and meaning that spell casting always begins on segment 1.

[Nagora]

Nagora I am having trouble even following your argument concerning btb actions when you simply gloss over actual printed statements contained in the PHB and DMG. You may not like that the language in the core rule book contradicts what you might wish it contained, but to ignore what is actually printed lessons the force of your argument.

I can only assume at this point that you are not going to listen or "follow" any argument that doesn't suit you.

In simplest terms, the core rule books do contain language that points out when spell casting starts (initiative roll)

You have failed to quote that text, which isn't surprising since it exists only in your head. The text says that initiative determines the order of commencement. It does not say anything about entire segments of pause.

and do not mention spell casting starting on segment 1.

This part is true. It's a deduction on my part (and DMPrata's too, for that matter, who arrived at the same conclusion independently).

You might not like this fact, but never the less, it is reality. Because of this, I argue the btb method of determining when spell casting begins is more likely the printed rules in the core rule books and not an idea espoused by someone but nowhere written in the core rule books.

Yet you yourself espouse a system which is a million miles from the book text - I listed some of the many problems with claiming that d6+ is BtB above but as usual you pretend "not to follow" simple English when it clashes with your presumptions and pet theory.

Perhaps you are correct and perhaps Gygax, when he wrote the printed words that initiative determined when spell casting begins,

In my proposed system, it does do that, but again you pretend not to understand.

really meant through properly rearranging his words and meaning that spell casting always begins on segment 1.

Well, I've had enough of your bullshit, frankly. I've addressed all your points repeatedly while you have studiously avoided addressing any of mine so, play whatever way you like but if you expect me to accept your mass of houserules as being what's in the text then you will be waiting a long time.

Re: surprise, it's just another action, right? This is like how putting the words phantasmal force around an ad-hoc action suddenly causes people to wonder how to run it.

There is no anomaly with actions carrying over from surprise into the round.

Well, I think in the original plan, and in practise, surprise is part of the first round, which is why you can only start casting on the first segment (which, I assert is the normal case and entirely consistent with my argument). I know that most of the time we don't play it that way but if one person is not surprised I think the concept is that their actions are part of the first round. How do you run it when one side is surprised except for a single individual?

Initiative is for people without an action at the start of a round, not those continuously acting from the round before.

I think that's a very narrow definition - initiative can be for people responding to what's just happened.

Rolls quantify unknowns. We don't roll for knowns.

Perhaps. If you have two characters who are equally capable how do you decide the outcome of some contest? If you know they're equal then the only option is to toss a coin or perhaps some similar mechanism which allows for the possibility of a draw. I'm not really sure where you were going with this, though.

Initiative has nothing to do with who finishes first. The only factor in who finishes first is how long something takes.

That flies in the face of a fair bit of printed text which tells us that initiative is about finding an opening in combat before your opponent. Melee and missile combat have no specific time requirements and the whole system is sort of built around that idea - if you take spell casting and movement out of the question then there simply isn't any consideration of how long things take, even when using weapon speed factors.

Of course when you start an action has a secondary effect, but slowly starting an action that takes very little time is not supposed to yield necessarily to quickly starting an action that takes a long time.

Indeed.

If someone has 2 segments of surprise and wants to cast a 4 segment spell they finish in segment 2 of round 1

OK - I'll leave the questions about mixed surprise results for now.

They started an action prior to anyone being able to contest it. When everyone else gains the ability to act, there is an existing constant - the spellcaster is unloading a spell in 2 segments, and the only question is if someone else will do something to interrupt what is otherwise going to happen.

Yeah. Same as normal, but effectively with 2-segments knocked off the casting time. This is entirely consistent with my interpretation; it's not even a special case, which it is in the d6+ system.

This is the same for someone taking an action longer than a round to complete. No, they don't have to roll initiative in the next round. They're acting already, continuously.

Let's look at mixed surprise again. Illusionists have high dex so let's assume that your "attacker" has 2-segments of surprise to start casting a 4-seg spell, but a "defender" illusionist is unaffected by surprise while his companions are. We now have the situation that when "round 1" starts both the attacking MU and the defending Illusionist have been casting for 2 segments. What happens if:

a) They are both casting 4-segment spells,
b) The illusionist is casting a 3-segment spell.

What do you do in these cases?

No it isn't broken that someone who wins initiative may go after a continuous process already in motion at the beginning of the round. The initiative isn't against that prior, completing action - it's against others who likewise have no prior course of action in process.

I think that's circular reasoning, to be honest. You're defining initiative and then arguing in favour of that definition by pointing out its effects. The in-game logic is still counter-intuitive for the players.

If there was no opposition starting an action that round; if the only opposition was a spellcaster continuing a spell from a previous round, then no initiative would be rolled - the DM would simply ask what everyone was doing and compare durations - any physical attack would take place immediately; no one is fighting back, so no circling or feinting is required. If trying to cast a spell compare its casting time to the known finish point of the other action in-process. Etc.

Yes, but the rules given tell us when those ending times are, in the case of weapon attacks, and the printed rules bear no resemblance to the d6+ system.

Against actions already in process, the only question is whether a counter-action finishes before the action in process does. When the counter-action started isn't the point; starting earlier always helps, but is not determinative.

Well, I agree.

Someone upset that they could win initiative against a MUs summoned mooks, and act before the mooks, but also going after the completion of a spell in process for more than a round because that fixed time terminates very early in this round, is acting entitled.

No they're not, they're asking for consistency. The d6+ system is inconsistent in its handling of the idea of having initiative. Most of the time it happens to work as described in the book where having initiative means that you go first. But because, unlike the book and completely needlessly, the d6+ system insists on making everything into a specific point of time, it creates situations where someone engaged in 2-segments of activity in a round may or may not act first without regard to who has initiative. The only way to explain that is to fall back on the fundamental premise of the d6+ system which is that huge amount of time in the 1-minute combat round is spend standing around doing nothing.

This isn't logic. It can only be a break in logic if one starts with the premise that winning initiative means always finishing before the things that can hurt you, hurt you.

That's not promised anywhere in AD&D.

Hmmm. Well, I'd say that for someone with a weapon it pretty well is. It's not guaranteed for someone doing something that takes a long time, certainly. But we're back at the perversity of your interpretation where the rules only give the losing initiative side a chance to act first if the winning side is engaged in something that takes a long time, but you suddenly want to allow the opposite.

Answer me this: if there is no spell casting, potion drinking, movement and so on happening, just a straight up melee and/or missile combat, is there anything in the rules that suggest that a person with initiative will go before someone without it? Secondary question: in the book, is there any way of knowing when during the round the resulting strikes take place?

I doubt that you'll surprise anyone with the answers, so the final part of the breakdown is: do you think that spell casting in melee is supposed to be at an initiative disadvantage or not? In other words, do the rules give you the impression that a person casting a spell who loses initiative is better off than someone who loses initiative while using a weapon?

[AxeMental]

Negora: "This part is true. It's a deduction on my part (and DMPrata's too, for that matter, who arrived at the same conclusion independently)."



If you have no direct evidence just "deduction", why do you think your deduction is superior to another person's (especially when your deduction doesn't "flow" with the presumptions of battle "non-spell casters" are held to (namely the abstraction of what a character or monster is needing to do before they get in their your meaningful action (like finding your footing, avoiding blows, feints, locating targets, avoiding friendly fire etc.)?

Negora: how is it that (a magic user standing in a stinking muddy slippery cave with bats and spider webbing all over , arrows flying about, men in his own party (surrounding him) moving and bumping into him, screaming and yelling of orders and suggestions, confusion of hitting your own comrade by mistake, possible back attacks etc.) every other class is slowed down by this chaos before getting in their meaningful action, but not the MU casting MM or sleep? As you say the guy who hits the MU is assumed to get his hit in on segment 1. That seems difficult to believe.

Your interpretation came up many many years ago (when we were debating rules at DF and other websites). Many different takes and logical deductions were made of the writings, all valid deductions to one degree or another. Sadly none of us are Holmes that will result in a conclusion of "my God....how did you catch me"! Rather we have to think what works best (so is probably what was intended), certainly of the rules interpretations, some seemed more workable and supportable then others. As of now, the one in OSRIC seems the most plausible (you go when the other guy roles, add your casting time). Everyone in the battle is on equal keel (ie. casters are subject to the same chaos and conditions as everyone else, they don't start casting before they can find a safe place to start casting, for instance).

As for DMPrata, I remember his name from the past (way back when at DF I believe). I recall thinking he got many things wrong (based on what I thought was faulty logic at the time). But he got other things correct.

[EOTB]

Guys, it really doesn't matter. I'd play in Nagora's game before I played in a 2E game.

That said, I have some responses to his questions. But they'll have to wait until later tonight.

[Nagora]

Negora: "This part is true. It's a deduction on my part (and DMPrata's too, for that matter, who arrived at the same conclusion independently)."



If you have no direct evidence just "deduction", why do you think your deduction is superior to another person's (especially when your deduction doesn't "flow" with the presumptions of battle "non-spell casters" are held to (namely the abstraction of what a character or monster is needing to do before they get in their your meaningful action (like finding your footing, avoiding blows, feints, locating targets, avoiding friendly fire etc.)?

Because the other deduction you mention requires a huge amount of invention of new text. As I keep saying, I'm not saying that I'm 100% sure about my interpretation but the d6+ is so wrong in so many ways that it's not in doubt, although if the DM can make it work then fair play to them.

Nagora: how is it that (a magic user standing in a stinking muddy slippery cave with bats and spider webbing all over , arrows flying about, men in his own party (surrounding him) moving and bumping into him, screaming and yelling of orders and suggestions, confusion of hitting your own comrade by mistake, possible back attacks etc.) every other class is slowed down by this chaos before getting in their meaningful action, but not the MU casting MM or sleep? As you say the guy who hits the MU is assumed to get his hit in on segment 1. That seems difficult to believe.

There's two aspects to that. Firstly, two random things in relation to each other are no more random than one random thing in relation to a fixed point (so your chance of rolling the same number as my d6 with your d6 is the same as rolling a 3 or any other specific static number), at least when discussing spell casters and melee. So the system is actually no less abstract in play than the general melee combat system. The other thing, and maybe you're not picking up on this, is that anyone with initiative making a physical (or spell-like) attack will get that attack in before the 1-segment spell. So, the spellcaster is no better off if the other side manages to get the initiative. If they don't, s/he is worse off than the weapon-using opponents as there is still a chance that those opponents will strike first despite losing initiative. So, the magic user standing in a stinking muddy slippery cave with bats and spider webbing all over , arrows flying about etc. is always worse off, initiative-wise, than his companions and foes. Which seems to be the intent of the rules to me.

Additionally, spellcasting, movement, and so on are literally different in that the rules do give us specific non-abstract characteristics for them in units of real time. This is obviously different from missile and melee combat so, whether we think that is a breaking of the abstraction or not, it is clearly a design intent that these things are treated differently in some way.

As of now, the one in OSRIC seems the most plausible (you go when the other guy roles, add your casting time).

It's Stewart's rules; he can run it any way he likes. I'm not going to get on board with "plausable" however. The d6+ system is simply unconnected with AD&D and based on the long-held belief that there is no workable system in the DMG and so the creators of the d6+ system felt free to invent from whole-cloth. My claim is that if we take the clue about spellcasting in surprise along with the rules about interruption and attacks against spellcasters with melee weapons, it makes a lot more sense if we assume that spellcasting and movement starts on seg-1.

When we do that, the need for all these special corner cases about being attacked before commencement, and what happens with spill-over go away because they simply can't happen - which is why they're never explained or considered in any way - and the resulting system is really easy to use and requires a minimum amount of record keeping for a DM who potentially has to handle multiple spellcasters. This is what I mean by "deduction": the system is simpler, uses fewer assumptions, and works well while satisfying at least most of the stated goals of the rules, such as spell casting in melee being fraught with the risk of wasting the spell. Unless we find the original manuscript with the missing section ("Combat Proceedure") then deduction is all we have in terms of "BtB" combat.

As for DMPrata, I remember his name from the past (way back when at DF I believe).

Well, his name is on the landing page for this site, so that might be a reminder too. My point was more that it's not just one nutter. There's two of us

[EOTB]

Nagora, if someone attempts to cast a spell requiring a turn of casting time, in combat, do you make them roll initiative on rounds 2-10?

I'll presume this is rhetorical and "no". If I'm incorrect chime in.

If combat broke out around an action in process - let's say, a magic-user is casting summon elemental in a non-combat situation but in between starting and finishing, a random encounter occurs and the party protects the MU.

On the first round of combat do you make the MU with the summon-in-process roll initiative?

Also, if you feel that surprise is part of round 1 - do you allow MUs to cast another spell after surprise, in the "rest of round 1", if they got off a 1 segment magic missile in the surprise portion?