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.
Of course, I'm ready for my epiphany to be shattered, but at least I think I've mastered this part of the rules.
AxeMental wrote:North, I totally disagree. I play this way and its goes smooth as silk, very little thinking involved. It does not slow down the game as you might think.
DM roles a 4 so PC goes on seg. 4. A MM spell would go off on seg. 4. You could add to this for WSF if your using it. Its very simple...no BS really.
I still think you're making AD&D combat more complicated than it needs to be. When I want to track strike ranks and dex scores, I play Runequest or a BRP derived system. I hold by my assertion that weapon speed factors and casting times in combat should only matter when the following conditions are met, as per the DMG:
1) Surprise
2) Charging
3) Melee against a spellcaster when the spellcaster wins initiative.
Segments are normally not tracked.
In every other case, the plain jane umodified initiative roll determines when each side can act. *
* EDIT: With the exception of a high dexterity possibly changing when an individual attacker can shoot first.
EDIT 2: And when multiple attack routines are matched against single attack routines. But I don't think that factors into attacking spellcasters. Which is the crux of my long-time argument against "initiative roll + casting time = when a spell goes off."
Well, it works out the same as high role goes first, just add segs to spell casting -1 (or not like Foster). The rest I included to explain how I think the rules were supposed to work, but in the end it all works out pretty much the same (unless you use WSF and that doesn't even come into play vs. Monsters).
BTW I'm not into record keeping either, who ever roles high goes first (with adjustments for spells) its fast and simple.
"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
Thomas Jefferson in letter to Madison
Back in the days when a leopard could grab and break your Australopithecus (gracile or robust) nek and drag you into the tree as a snack, mankind has never had a break"
** Stone Giant
The key to understanidng initiative is to understand you are rolling for when the other side begins to act.
The high roll wins because this indicates you opponent will begin to act on the segment rolled by the winning high roll. You begin spellcasting, melee etc. based on your opponent's roll.
Ex 1. A rolls 4 and B a 3. This means A begins to act on segent 3. (If he cast a 1 seg. spell it goes off on segment 3, not 4 by the way).
Anonymous wrote:The key to understanidng initiative is to understand you are rolling for when the other side begins to act.
The high roll wins because this indicates you opponent will begin to act on the segment rolled by the winning high roll. You begin spellcasting, melee etc. based on your opponent's roll.
Ex 1. A rolls 4 and B a 3. This means A begins to act on segent 3. (If he cast a 1 seg. spell it goes off on segment 3, not 4 by the way).
That's hard to reconcile with page 66 and 67 of the DMG.
Anonymous wrote:The key to understanidng initiative is to understand you are rolling for when the other side begins to act.
The high roll wins because this indicates you opponent will begin to act on the segment rolled by the winning high roll. You begin spellcasting, melee etc. based on your opponent's roll.
Ex 1. A rolls 4 and B a 3. This means A begins to act on segent 3. (If he cast a 1 seg. spell it goes off on segment 3, not 4 by the way).
That's hard to reconcile with page 66 and 67 of the DMG.
Conversely, pages 66 and 67 are hard to reconcile with p 65.
northrundicandus wrote:"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.
No, this is what the weapon speed factor rule on page 66 describes: how to determine if a melee attacker who has lost or tied initiative can beat the spellcaster.
Sigh. Okay, let's stop picking at the rules and get back to theory.
First of all, let's take care of the inconsequential case of non-combat. When two parties encounter each other (without surprise), initiative is rolled to determine who gets to choose the initial form of contact. Do you fight, negotiate, flee, or wait? All the die roll does is determine who chooses the first action; it does not specify what segment of the round it happens in. It is ludicrous to assume that two parties who meet each other, are not surprised, and roll 6 and 5 on their initiative dice have to wait at least 30 seconds before one side can say "Hello" to the other.
Now to combat. Here an initiative die is rolled to determine who goes first (with the highest roll). But what does "goes first" mean?
In purely melee combat, "going first" means striking the first telling blow. A round of melee is, as we know, a whole minute of swings, feints, parries, and other maneuvers, and each combatant normally receives a single chance during that minute to land a telling blow (cause hit point damage). The initiative die does not determine who swings first, or who steps forward first, or anything like that. It determines in what order damage will potentially be sustained. The dice do not tell you when the damage takes place during the fight—remember, it's abstracted. In pure melee, such a determination would be pointless anyway.
The various initiative systems in AD&D are designed primarily with melee combat in mind. Multiple attacks by high-level fighters, multiple attacks during simultaneous initiative—these things work perfectly and easily when you're only dealing with melee.
All other attack forms, however, are problematic. Consider missile-fire. If two parties are only shooting at each other, the initiative die indicates both who fires first and who causes damage first. Because missile-fire is almost instantaneous, and is not abstracted like melee, these are the same thing. Unfortunately, there's a serious question here: are missile-fire attacks with a rate of fire greater than 1 the same as multiple attack routines? If a group of longbowmen are shooting at a group of spear-throwers, do the longbows fire before and after the spears are thrown, or does an initiative die determine which goes first, and the bows get a second shot afterward? (And if the former, what are those spearmen waiting for while the bowmen are shooting their first shots at them?)
What gets the system really hairy, however, is magic. One of the most annoyingly cryptic statements in the DMG is on page 65: "[Spell casting] commencement is dictated by initiative determination as with other attack forms, but their culmination is subject to the stated casting time." And that means... what?
The problem is that spell casting, magic device use, and some other actions take a specific amount of time, but time isn't actually measured in the abstract combat round.
One attempt to address this leads to the most annoyingly cryptic statement in the DMG: "Attacks directed at spell casters will come on that segment of the round shown on the opponent's or on their own side's initiative die, whichever is applicable." What the hell does that mean?
Lots of people have interpretations of that statement, but they don't really make sense. If it's just the spell caster's die that gets used, as is popularly stated, why the vague language?
And then there is the section "Other Weapon Factor Determinants" on page 66, which is completely at odds with the first method, but which covers all actions with known durations (not just spell casting). The two methods are completely irreconcilable. The former doesn't take the weapon speed into account; the latter doesn't take the caster's initiative into account.
Some have suggested that "Rule 2" is used when shooting at a spell caster, while "Other Weapon Factor Determinants" is used when meleeing a spell caster. Unfortunately, "Rule 2" is part of a section called "Spell Casting During Melee," and no indication is made that it refers only to missile fire.
And then, after all this, you still have more problems as different attack forms are combined in the same round. The questions each poses exacerbate each other. How do you deal with a combat with spell and melee vs. spell and missile-fire?
And don't even THINK about trying to add the DMG's unarmed combat system into the mix.
So forget arguing about a by-the-book answer. There isn't one. There's no ultimate system; it's just a bunch of ideas cobbled together into the book, probably done at vastly different times during the book's evolution. But you can understand the individual components of the system and use them in a way that is internally consistent with the nature of AD&D combat.
northrundicandus wrote: Isn't that what I just described?
Or is "Rule Two" something else?
"Rule Two" is on DMG p. 65: "2. Attacks directed at spell casters will come on the segment of the round shown on the opponent's or on their own side's initiative die..."
Try to reconcile this with "Other Weapon Factor Determinants" on page 66.
Consider the case of a magic-user using a fireball against a fighter using a long sword. The magic-user gets a 2 on initiative and the fighter gets a 1. According to "Rule Two," the fighter stops the spell. According to "Other Weapon Factor Determinants," he does not.
And then there is the section "Other Weapon Factor Determinants" on page 66, which is completely at odds with the first method, but which covers all actions with known durations (not just spell casting). The two methods are completely irreconcilable. The former doesn't take the weapon speed into account; the latter doesn't take the caster's initiative into account.
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.
Where is "missile fire is almost instantaneous" discussed in the DMG or PH?
Also, wouldn't this just mean its quick to use once you get the chance? After all, there's no way to know the conditions are correct (or mental focus ready) to get the shot off in the begining of the round, right?
Think of the bowman in the back of the group who has comrades infront of him, or cobwebs sticking to his eye lashes that need brushed away, or trying to pick a suitable target, figuring out if he should run, etc. etc. etc.
Firing a bow while under attack shouldn't be all that different then a quarterback thinking about and then executing a pass....waiting for the "best pass possible". This could happen within seconds, after 10s of seconds, or not at all.
The point is, alot of things are quick to do (such as shooting an arrow or casting MM) what slows a person up is mental focus, getting your footing, and conditions (is the target clear, open etc.). In that way, a guy with a longsword might very well be able to swing at a bowmans comrade before the bowman ever gets a chance to take a shot at him.
This seems obvious to me. Anyhow, were would the fun be in having the MU always cast his 1 seg spell on seg 1 or the archer always going before the guy with the 2 handed sword. In real life you can say theres a greater chance for the quicker weapon to go first, but you can't say it will always work out that way. I think AD&Ds initiative system is designed to reflect that reality (and WSF is a means to give some wieght based on assumed factors such as weight etc.)
"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
Thomas Jefferson in letter to Madison
Back in the days when a leopard could grab and break your Australopithecus (gracile or robust) nek and drag you into the tree as a snack, mankind has never had a break"
** Stone Giant
Isn't that what I just described?