AxeMental wrote:Where is "missile fire is almost instantaneous" discussed in the DMG or PH?
Nowhere is it specified that one roll to hit uses more than one piece of ammunition. The assumption of multiple feints, parries, etc., in melee is discussed.
Stormcrow, I agree with your assessment of the initiative rules as a collection of tools for the referee. Concerning spell-casting during melee, procedure #2 on p. 65 is different from the procedure under "Other Weapon Factor Determinants" on pp. 66-67.
There seems to be some idea that you would fire quickly with a bow (even when the target sees you). I used to hunt deer with a bow and would have to wait before the deer turned just right before I attempted to take the shot (and I never fired on one BTW, hard to get close enough and to get them to turn just right; though I have friends that do every year).
If the target was intelligent and coming after me or a friend, I suppose I'd be even more selective. The reality is, hitting a moving target with an arrow, and having that arrow hit a vital organ is very difficult. Thats why if you bow hunt your obliged to be strong enough to hold your draw, and a good shot (1 shot 1 kill) otherwise the poor animal runs off with your arrow sticking out of muscle and dies a slow miserable death of infection. And thats why I don't hunt anymore (no time to keep up my skills).
There are some real life accounts of bow hunters going after bear, where the bear turns on them and they have to wait till the shot is perfect to take the animal (keeping cool).
Also, there are guys in Florida (where I live) who enjoy taking their bows out and hunting wild boar/pig, but most of these guys keep a .44 revolver handy just in case (as these boar charge often). Bottom line, you'd have to get lucky to be able to get your target lined up right to take a meaningful shot within seconds of seeing it. MOre then likely it would take the target to commit to some motion before you could shoot, and that would be after seg 1.
Also consider, the fighter who thrusts and parries is doing the same thing as a bowmen (or martial artist or boxer) waiting for an opening before making the death blow. It's all the same. What takes time in combat isn't the speed of the weapon (though this is a real factor) its waiting for your opponent to screw up so you can make your kill. And thats just what a person with a bow would do IMO.
Edit: Concerning firing into a bunched group at a distance; if its anything like hunting quail, a bowman is likely to aim for a specific point on a specific individual in a cluster of overlapping individuals within that bunch to maximize the chance of a meaningful hit (hunting quail with a bow is a fun but difficult task).
As Mel Gibson told his sons (while reeking revenge on some British soldiers in that boring Revolutionary War movie he made) "aim small miss small" or something like that.
Anyone who's played basketball knows this. Perhaps people are confusing mass arrow barrages with long distance targeted attacks (even at a distance you can factor in leed time and aim for an individual point). As for the mass barrage, don't you need a certain number of arrows coming into a given space before it becomes a serious threat (like rain)?
Oh, and BTW in my experience, every possible thing that could interfere with drawing your bow in the woods does, and at the worst possible moments! Another reason you might end up firing your bow on seg 5 rather then seg 1.
Last edited by AxeMental on Thu Jun 01, 2006 12:18 am, edited 3 times in total.
"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
I reckon the initiative roll is meant to cover "waiting for the shot" with missiles as well as hand-to-hand weapons — which is why ROF doesn't match the rate one might get from massed troops loosing volleys.
I'll have to reread SC's post and try to figure out what implications he saw in the "almost instantaneous" flight of a missile; I'm not sure he meant to suggest what you've gathered.
There's nothing terribly realistic about everyone on a side getting a telling opportunity at the same time, or about a lot of other things in AD&D. I personally see nothing wrong with a DM bringing considerations into play when they are especially relevant. Vast volumes of rules applied to every situation don't appeal to me, though.
I vaguely recall reading once of the finding of corpses of hunters who were not quick and accurate enough with their rifles to stop a bear; I think it surprised them while they were examining a downed deer.
In a homebrew game, a guy once speared a big bear — only to have it fall on him. That hurt, and left him in a bit of a fix. I don't think there's any set rule in AD&D to produce that result; as ref, one sometimes has to "wing it!"
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.
A third condition must also be met.
3) The weapon attacker must have closed with the spell caster in a previous round. Page 66, under Weapon Speed Factor, last sentence, states that speed factors are not applicable when closing or charging into melee. There's nothing, that I can see anywhere, else that contra-indicates this when attacking spell casters.
So, unless the spell caster is actually casting a spell, he wins initiative and the weapon attacker is already closed with the caster, there's no need to even consider disrupting a spell with a hand-held melee weapon. Just roll the intiative die, have at it and quit dancin' around.
Geez, if I wanted a precise blow-by-blow for every single round, I'd whip out Arm's Law, HARP or BRP, where the rounds are only between 2 and 10 seconds long.
"The cave you fear to enter holds the treasure you seek." - Joseph Campbell
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.
Since no one else has commented on this, after so much discussion already, I could have misread the steps, or missed an entry that states otherwise. If so, please point it out to me. Thanks.
"The cave you fear to enter holds the treasure you seek." - Joseph Campbell
When a weapon wielder attacks a casting opponent, you subtract the weapon speed of the attacker from the attacker's losing initiative roll and count negatives as positives. Awkwardly worded, but I get it, I think.
Let's say the attacker is using a dagger (WS 2) and the caster is attempting Web (2 segs). Losing initiative was a 5. So, 5 -2 = 3. Oops, sorry, spell goes first.
Now let's say the attacker is using a broad sword (WS 5) and the caster is again attempting Web (2 segs). Losing initiative is a 5. So, 5 - 5 =0. Kablam! Spell may be disrupted with a successful attack.
Since the slower weapon is better able to disrupt the spell, then I obviously am doing this wrong. Please point out my missteps. Thanks.
"The cave you fear to enter holds the treasure you seek." - Joseph Campbell
Red Priest, I think you have good rules for when to apply the weapon speed factor. That they require a Talmudic "reading between the lines" seems not unusual in AD&D.
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 hard for me to reconcile most of this tactical-wargamey stuff with the basic assumptions of D&D combat. It's wacky from the start, so I'm not too dismayed when the end result makes little sense. Heck, it's just a game.
The text aside, I don't see why charges would be resolved before other attacks. The earliest possibility of attacking is obviously later for those who must move (or await a foe's move) to engage than for those already engaged.
Last edited by Dwayanu on Thu Jun 01, 2006 11:58 am, edited 3 times in total.
TheRedPriest wrote:When a weapon wielder attacks a casting opponent, you subtract the weapon speed of the attacker from the attacker's losing initiative roll and count negatives as positives. Awkwardly worded, but I get it, I think.
Let's say the attacker is using a dagger (WS 2) and the caster is attempting Web (2 segs). Losing initiative was a 5. So, 5 -2 = 3. Oops, sorry, spell goes first.
Now let's say the attacker is using a broad sword (WS 5) and the caster is again attempting Web (2 segs). Losing initiative is a 5. So, 5 - 5 =0. Kablam! Spell may be disrupted with a successful attack.
Since the slower weapon is better able to disrupt the spell, then I obviously am doing this wrong. Please point out my missteps. Thanks.
Well, that rule I think was added to represent the inherent Chaos that is Combat. As Foster has so elegantly put it, one of AD&D's design goals was to "screw the Magic-User", so AD&D makes spellcasters’ lives much more difficult. The rule creates situations that ensure that spellcasters have a much harder time when casting spells in melee situations than OD&D. It almost acts like a primitive version of d20’s Attacks of Opportunity. The DMG on page 65 states that:
“It can thus be understood that spell casting during a melee can be a tricky business, for a mere shove at any time can spoil the dweomer!”
This rule grants a chance that even a melee attacker who loses initiative still has a chance of disrupting a spell before the caster can finish it. Weapons with low to mid speed factors still have that chance, while slowest can rarely be successful.
Dwayanu wrote:
The text aside, I don't see why charges would be resolved before other attacks. The earliest possibility of attacking is obviously later for those who must move (or await a foe's move) to engage than for those already engaged.
The charging rules are in place to give some reason for longer weapons to be used in AD&D. When charging in AD&D, the longer weapon strikes first, regardless of initiative. AD&D's initiative determination system otherwise gives the shaft (okay - very bad pun) to weapons like spears, which were used throughout the time periods typical for AD&D games, not only because they were relatively inexpensive, but because they were very effective!
Systems like Stormbringer, RuneQuest, and even Rolemaster's Arms Law have systems in place that give longer weapons some advantage. AD&D's charging rules are simply a way to express this same advantage in a way that doesn't encumber AD&D's relatively quick combat resolution.
That longer should strike before shorter when two opponents are closing usually makes sense. That this confrontation in total must always take place before an attack by someone already engaged with the one receiving the charge — or aiming a missile at any of the above — does not make sense.
As observed above, I don't expect AD&D to make much sense.
Dwayanu wrote:That longer should strike before shorter when two opponents are closing usually makes sense. That this confrontation in total must always take place before an attack by someone already engaged with the one receiving the charge — or aiming a missile at any of the above — does not make sense.
As observed above, I don't expect AD&D to make much sense.
Well, Gary did expect his readers to be astute enough to handle cases like this on their own, as AD&D cannot detail every single situation and nuance. The above two options can easily be handled by whoever wins the d6 initiative roll. I believe that is BTB, and makes the most sense!
Dwayanu wrote:How does that work when the charges were all resolved before the initiative dice were rolled?
Charges should be declared before initiative dice, not handled before the dice are rolled, as there are clearly situations (like the one you just expressed) that can occur that are not spelled out in the rules, and having an initiative die to reference can help the DM make a just call.
EDIT The Charging rule seems to only apply to those who are closing and are not engaged in combat. Initiative would still determine who gets the first opportunity to act in every other case, e.g.: spells or missile fire against a charging target.
The joys of AD&D Init. Spicing up Message Boards for ages.
Last edited by northrundicandus on Thu Jun 01, 2006 12:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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.
Since no one else has commented on this, after so much discussion already, I could have misread the steps, or missed an entry that states otherwise. If so, please point it out to me. Thanks.
