Knights & Knaves Alehouse

It's all about reading comprehension.

I hope I can answer your question in regards to the three sides as I am not sure what you are asking.

I shall state it again: the PCs make one roll for initiative, the DM makes another roll representing everyone else. Where can this mysterious claim be found? Well, in the DMG under Initiative Gygax explains why it is the way I have stated above. He explains one could roll individual rolls, but it is not done so.

Just for you----page 62 DMG.

Ska wrote:It's all about reading comprehension.

I hope I can answer your question in regards to the three sides as I am not sure what you are asking.

I shall state it again: the PCs make one roll for initiative, the DM makes another roll representing everyone else. Where can this mysterious claim be found? Well, in the DMG under Initiative Gygax explains why it is the way I have stated above. He exlains one could roll individual rolls, but it is not done so.

Just for you----page 62 DMG.

That rule refers to initiative being rolled for each individual combatant in a melee, NOT to sides.

Reading comprehension indeed.

Stark---pretend each individual is a "side" and this should answer your question.
Also notice, " "It indicates which of the two parties will act/react." Hmm...parties was used. Odd.

Wonder why is says "two parties" ? Very odd indeed.

While your at it, take a look how all exapmples of combat or initiative always invovle two sides or the PCs versus everyone else.

You may not like the rules, but they are what they are never the less.

Remember, when it's not the PCs the DM can determine whatever actions he wants concerning the non-PC sides as far as initiative goes.

northrundicandus wrote:

Stormcrow wrote: (I still maintain, however, that the whole thing can be made comprehensive—excluding unarmed combat—by eliminating "rule two" from the Spell Casting in Melee section. Look up my username and the word initiative on Dragonsfoot if you haven't read this before.)

"Rule Two" can be reconciled with the rest of the initiative rules if you only use it as the rules suggest - when a spellcaster wins initiative, but someone is within melee range. It gives a chance for spell disruption even when the caster wins initiative. The rule shouldn't be used if the melee side wins, as their attack will come first regardless.

Aside from some issues of missile fire, I think North has the solution to resolve everything else.

I too have come to the conclusion that this statement resolves the matter of reconiling Rule #2 and the Other Weapon Factors Determinants rule perfectly. I've thought about this for awhile now, and though I originally rejected North's view on this, I now think its right on.

The seeming conflict between these two "different" rules, to my mind, is the crux of the whole confusion about AD&D initiative (well, besides internet message boards where the whole matter has been completely muddied). I know these are the two rules that never made sense to me.

I'll go into this more when I complete my essay on initiative, but wanted to acknowledge how much this solution impresses me.

EDITED a typo for clarity.

Ska wrote:Stark---pretend each individual is a "side" and this should answer your question.
Also notice, " "It indicates which of the two parties will act/react." Hmm...parties was used. Odd.

Wonder why is says "two parties" ? Very odd indeed.

While your at it, take a look how all exapmples of combat or initiative always invovle two sides or the PCs versus everyone else.

You may not like the rules, but they are what they are never the less.

Well, if you want to warp the point of that passage to make it say that, then have at it.

Remember, when it's not the PCs the DM can determine whatever actions he wants concerning the non-PC sides as far as initiative goes.

So the DM can decide that the npcs or monsters take thier actions whenever he wants them to, regardless of the initiative die?

Bleh.

Stark---of course the DM can decide when two or more sides not engaged with the PCs will or will not act or how they will act.

Hence, the rules in the 1e rulebooks always speak of the PCs versus others. If you wish to play it where everyone rolls to determine when they act I can suggest 3e to you.

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

*bump*

For what it's worth----about 2 years ago I e-mailed EGG about this very issue. (how initiative works).

EGG advised that originally the 1d6 roll indicated when one's opponent would act in the combat round. This is why the high roll "goes first". The person rolling the high roll begins to act on the lower roll number from the roll generated by the "loser".

Spell casting abides by these rules. EGG confirmed that a 1 seg. spell occurs on the segment the caster begins to act. (The Casting Time-1 formula is correct)

EGG advised that he had long ago started rolling 1d10 with low roll going first.

Stormcrow's interpretation is his own take on the rules, but it is not BTB.

Ska wrote: Stormcrow's interpretation is his own take on the rules, but it is not BTB.

The same can be said of EGG's interpretation.

If "you go on the other guy's roll" is what they meant when they assembled the DMG, then it would have been very easy just to have stated that simply. The fact that it is not stated as the way to resolve basic situations indicates that this is not what they were thinking when they assembled the book, but it may have been some method that EGG used (among, I betcha, a score or more other methods .. and simultaneously!) in his game.

I'm not saying that the "you go on the other guy's roll" isn't a nice way to resolve a lot of problems, it is, it's just that it is not BTB.

Thanks Ska, it's been too long since I razzed you on this.

I don't put a lot of weight on Gary's later-year interpretations; there are too many cases where he contradicts himself.

As far as I can tell, having the initiative die roll indicate the segment your enemy goes on isn't by-the-book; by default, it seems to me that initiative is just "who goes first," with some special cases added (e.g. spellcasting in a melee). I have some reservations about die roll=segment of action. For actions outside of melee, it's especially odd. Take spellcasting, for example. I can see spellcasting in melee being difficult and subject to delays, so it might make sense for a spellcaster in a melee to only get a chance to cast on segment 5, to pick a number (i.e. 30 seconds into the round). However, a thirty second delay makes no sense for a spellcaster outside of melee. If there's a melee, and the magic user is "behind the line" and undisturbed, I don't think his spell would be subject to such a delay; it would just take him however many segments to cast it (i.e. the casting time from the start of the round).

Missile attacks are another issue. What does everyone make of this sentence from the crossbow of speed, for example:

...Otherwise, it allows first fire in any melee round, and end of round fire also, when applicable...

"End of round fire" makes sense to me if I'm considering the phased combat sequence from Swords & Spells, but I'm not sure how that applies to AD&D.

I have little doubt that it is referring to a variation on one (perhaps even both) of the two alternative initiative procedures presented in Warriors of Mars.

Think about it---how else could it be interpreted if one recalls a combat round is a certain sequntial number of segments?

How would rolling high (with each die roll representing a segment of the round) be good when one wants to act first? The answer is that your high roll is when you opponent acts.

I do understand that these rules were extremely poorly written.

Geez, are we talking about this again?

Ska wrote:Think about it---how else could it be interpreted if one recalls a combat round is a certain sequntial number of segments? How would rolling high (with each die roll representing a segment of the round) be good when one wants to act first? The answer is that your high roll is when you opponent acts.

That's a decent argument...if you assume that the die roll indicates a segment, in the first place. I don't think the rules back that up as a general principle. Instead, the general principle is "high roll wins and goes first," with the specific number being insignificant except in a few special cases.

Stormcrow wrote:Geez, are we talking about this again?

Apparently so. News to me, though.