Knights & Knaves Alehouse

northrundicandus wrote: The joys of AD&D Init. Spicing up Message Boards for ages.

That and Alignment — just a couple of reasons I prefer to ref D&D. As an AD&D player, I still try to come up with tactics clear enough to keep the DM out of the rulesbooks.

northrundicandus wrote:I too thought that these were irreconcilable, until I realized the second method only applies under the following conditions:

1) The spellcaster is attacked with a melee weapon that has a speed factor

2) The spellcaster wins initiative

If the weapon attacker wins initiative, he attacks first regardless. If the spellcaster wins init, then there is still a chance his spell is disrupted.

Both mentioned systems for melee attacks against spellcasters work together without conflicts if viewed in this light.

I am viewing it in this light, and they don't work together. You can only choose to use one or the other. There is no text that states that you use "Other Weapon Factor Determinants" under the listed conditions and "Rule Two" under every other. Your listed conditions are correct, but there is overlap between these and "Rule Two." There is nothing to indicate that "Rule Two" doesn't include melee; indeed, it's in a section entitled "Spell Casting In Melee."

Again, please consider the case where a magic-user casts a fireball against a fighter using a long sword, the magic-user rolls 2 for initiative and the fighter rolls 1. If you use "Rule Two," the fighter attacks the magic-user on segment 2, before the firebal goes off on segment 3. If you use "Other Weapon Factor Determinants," which shows exactly this example, the fighter's adjusted weapon speed factor is 5−1=4 is greater than the casting time of the spell, and so the spell goes off first.

The best possibility of using both rules is to assume that "Rule Two" applies only to missile fire. There is no other reason to assume this is true, except to try to fit in both rules.

David
Stardate 6416.9

Taking the text literally, there seem to be two completely different approaches. Given that, it seems fair for DMs to construct a synthesis. They would be as justified in choosing one or the other.

As to "whichever is applicable" on p. 65, perhaps that means on the higher roll. The example makes sense to me from that perspective. It's still not a model of clarity in writing!

Dwayanu wrote:What you "did wrong" was reverse the formula. Speed 2 less 5 is -3, treated (BTB) as positive 3. Speed 5 less 5 is 0. Same result! The "slower" weapon still strikes sooner — but that's the verbatim rule.

There may be a rationale in the fact that speed factor chiefly reflects length.

It's not really that confusing a concept. AD&D 2nd Edition does the same thing in an optional rule, with a few differences: (1) it applies this to all attacks, not just melee vs. timed events where melee loses initiative; (2) a d10 is used instead of a d6, and the lowest roll goes first; and (3) factors are added, not subtracted, because of point 2.

What you're doing is comparing the casting speed with the weapon speed, but the weapon speed has the benefit of being variable. That is, a weapon speed factor is not the number of segments it takes to land a blow with the weapon. The factor can be used this way, but only when it's modified by initiative, to produce a variable number of segments.

So basically, comparing the timing of action vs. melee weapon is just comparing casting time or time to use vs. weapon speed factor. Weapons just land a blow any time within their factor, in segments, and this is determined by initiative.

David
Stardate 6416.9

TheRedPriest wrote:

Initiative works (basically) thus:

Players declare actions.

Any charges are resolved immediately.

1d6 is rolled for each side. ...

Where does this come from? DMG pages 61 & 66 pretty clearly state that charges are resolved at the same time as closing, that is, after missle discharge, magical device .. etc.

Nonono. All of the lettered options in step 4 are resolved by all the funny business we're talking about here. None of them necessarily come before the other. They're just a menu of options. Charging and closing doesn't happen "after" missile fire. That's what the "Other Weapon Factor Determinants" and other stuff is there to try to disambiguate.

David
Stardate 6416.9

Begging your pardon, Stormcrow, I find no greater clarity after reading your last [edit: now, the one before "no no no"] post. Perhaps a bit more help in mapping your observations to the issues previously raised would help.

I'm pointing out that the "Other Weapon Factor Determinants" rule resembles AD&D 2nd Edition's add-speed-factor-to-initiative rule, only applied in situations that call for it, not across the board.

David
Stardate 6417.0

What do you think of interpreting "whichever is applicable" on p.65 (#2) as "whichever is higher?"

I think that any number of explanations put forward can explain "whichever is applicable."

Let's look at "whichever is higher."

Magic-user vs. Fighter
6 & 6 --> Tie, attack comes on 6
6 & 1–5 --> MU wins init., attack comes on 6

5 & 6 --> Fighter wins init., attack comes on 6
5 & 5 --> Tie, attack comes on 5
5 & 1–4 --> MU wins init., attack comes on 5

4 & 5–6 --> Fighter wins init., attack comes on 5–6
4 & 4 --> Tie, attack comes on 4
4 & 1–3 --> MU wins init., attack comes on 4

3 & 4–6 --> Fighter wins init., attack comes on 4–6
3 & 3 --> Tie, attack comes on 3
3 & 1–2 --> MU wins init., attack comes on 3

2 & 3–6 --> Fighter wins init., attack comes on 3–6
2 & 2 --> Tie, attack comes on 2
2 & 1 --> MU wins init., attack comes on 2

1 & 2–6 --> Fighter wins init., attack comes on 2–6
1 & 1 --> Tie, attack comes on 1.

This works better than the popular "on the spell caster's die roll," because either die might be used, as implied by the text. I am inclined to believe this could be what the text means, but it's not certain.

Now, suppose the magic-user is casting a fireball, and the initiative rolls are 1 & 2. The fighter wins initiative, but the fireball goes off first?

David
Stardate 6417.1

Stormcrow wrote:

TheRedPriest wrote:

Initiative works (basically) thus:

Players declare actions.

Any charges are resolved immediately.

1d6 is rolled for each side. ...

Where does this come from? DMG pages 61 & 66 pretty clearly state that charges are resolved at the same time as closing, that is, after missle discharge, magical device .. etc.

Nonono. All of the lettered options in step 4 are resolved by all the funny business we're talking about here. None of them necessarily come before the other. They're just a menu of options. Charging and closing doesn't happen "after" missile fire. That's what the "Other Weapon Factor Determinants" and other stuff is there to try to disambiguate.

David
Stardate 6416.9

On page 66, under Charging, the text explicitly states that there is a "charge round". So, to me, that implies things are done in a certain order. Also, notice that the list of steps, 1-6, on page 61 are listed in a chronological order. The order of events under #4. are also layed out in such a way that they would logically occur in the order shown. That is, a series of steps. Certainly, you wouldn't assert that steps H. and C. could be interchangeable?

Let's assume, though, that you're correct about nothing happening in any particular order. There is still nothing in the text anywhere, (again, that I can find) that states that charges are resolved even before you roll initiative.

The list that got ported over from the The Delver's Forums are obviously house rules, or homebrew, rather than BTB. Oh, duh. Ya'll already knew that. Just call me Captain Obvious.

Since this thread has grown to 4 pages already in such a short amount of time, I doubt anyone out there is actually doing initiative BTB, it's all house rules. Uh. Cap'n Obvious strikes again?

Well, a certain few valiant souls do their best to play as close to the book as possible. Plus it is fun to try and wrestle out what is really in the Rules As Written. Almost like a religious or philosophical debate. To me that is one of AD&D's charms.

I need to address Stormcrow's additional points above, but that will have to wait until tomorrow.

An aside:

For a while I entertained the notion of DMing AD&D "by the books," but one thing I've learned at the Alehouse is that I'm not ready to take up that mantle. I'd surely be glad to play with any of you all as DM, but for now I think I'll stick with refereeing old D&D my way. This old dog is getting older by the day. Just give me a Cleric and some Ungodly to smite, and tell me when to roll the dice!

The discussions of Masters are fascinating, though. I'd thought (from a player's perspective) of AD&D as a "tidier" game, more suited to a wide audience than the wargamer-centric text of D&D. Now I find that uncommon probity is required of a DM. Perhaps the folks given the cursed task of writing 2e tried to make it easier to ref — and in the event got hung up by their good intentions.

TheRedPriest wrote:On page 66, under Charging, the text explicitly states that there is a "charge round". So, to me, that implies things are done in a certain order.

A charge round is a round in which a charge occurs. It's not a round in which the only thing that occurs is a charge.

Also, notice that the list of steps, 1-6, on page 61 are listed in a chronological order. The order of events under #4. are also layed out in such a way that they would logically occur in the order shown. That is, a series of steps. Certainly, you wouldn't assert that steps H. and C. could be interchangeable?

Let's assume, though, that you're correct about nothing happening in any particular order.

No, I'm not saying that A–H can happen in any order. I'm saying that A–H is not the order in which they happen. The subsequent several pages are all about how to determine when A–H happen in relation to each other.

Since this thread has grown to 4 pages already in such a short amount of time, I doubt anyone out there is actually doing initiative BTB, it's all house rules. Uh. Cap'n Obvious strikes again?

Figuring out how the rules work and stating how one plays the game are two different things. This is the "By the Book AD&D" forum, so the discussion is supposed to be about the rules of the game.

David
Stardate 6419.1

northrundicandus wrote:Well, a certain few valiant souls do their best to play as close to the book as possible. Plus it is fun to try and wrestle out what is really in the Rules As Written. Almost like a religious or philosophical debate. To me that is one of AD&D's charms.

Stormcrow wrote:

TheRedPriest wrote:Since this thread has grown to 4 pages already in such a short amount of time, I doubt anyone out there is actually doing initiative BTB, it's all house rules. Uh. Cap'n Obvious strikes again?

Figuring out how the rules work and stating how one plays the game are two different things. This is the "By the Book AD&D" forum, so the discussion is supposed to be about the rules of the game.

David
Stardate 6419.1

To clarify, I did not imply that people are not intending to play by the rules, only that given the rules' ambiguities (and this is what I meant by "Captain Obvious"), one DM's version of BTB will rarely match another's interpretation. Otherwise, this thread would not be so active and lively, even after 4 pages of posts in just a couple of days.

Stormcrow wrote:No, I'm not saying that A–H can happen in any order. I'm saying that A–H is not the order in which they happen. The subsequent several pages are all about how to determine when A–H happen in relation to each other.

Actually, I am not sure if we agree or not when charges are resolved. I still can't see where the rules even point to charges being resolved (not just declared) before initiative is rolled. Just to be clear; whenever charges are resolved, I stand that they are done so after rolling initiative.

We may be dancing around for nothing.

Not that I don't like to dance. In fact, I'm quite good at the cha-cha. Especially after some adult beverage lubrication.