Initiative

[Stormcrow]

Actually, I am not sure if we agree or not when charges are resolved.

That's because I haven't ventured an opinion on that.

Since there is no single combat sequence to follow, there is no set point at which charges are resolved. You work out the timing of the charge based on circumstances.

Suppose a fighter charges a magic-user from 50'. No other characters from either party are engaged or closing with these two. You can resolve the outcome before or after the actions of the rest of the party, because it's a totally independent melee.

Now go back to the beginning of this situation and suppose that the DM says that the magic-user is casting a spell, and the fighter's player says "I charge the magic-user." A charging character in a dungeon moves at double base speed, and this fighter is wearing metal armor (base speed 6"). The fighter moves 12 feet per segment during the charge, and so will reach the magic-user during the 4th or 5th segment (anywhere within 10' will satisfy the charge). It turns out the magic-user is casting a fireball spell, however, which goes off on the third segment after the fighter starts charging. If the fighter survives the fireball, he'll get to attack the magic-user at the end of the charge. (The DM might require him to halt his charge—getting blasted with a fireball is not easy to shrug off—but there's no rule to indicate this. It's about common sense, not rules. I'd probably let him continue to charge if he makes his saving throw against the fireball.)

And remember, all of this still takes place independently of any other combat in the area.

Let's take another example. Suppose you've got a fighter charging a bow-wielding ranger and a mace-wielding cleric. There are no guidelines in the book that explain how to handle a character charging a missile user. So what to do?

If the charge were relatively short, I'd feel inclined to have the charger and the bowman check initiative (whoever rolled party initiative for both sides). If the bowman wins initiative, he'll shoot once before the charger can reach them, but then he'll have to drop his bow and ready a melee weapon for the next round. I'd also have him automatically lose initiative the next round because his weapon wasn't ready. Meanwhile, the charger will run into either the bowman or the cleric (I'd probably let the charger choose). If he's against the bowman, he'll get a free attack. If he's against the cleric, there will be an exchange of blows, the first blow depending on whose weapon is longer.

If the charge were long (say, that armored (6" base) fighter 100' away), I might give the bowman an automatic first shot, and let him ready a weapon before the fighter arrived, or let him take a second shot if his party's initiative were better than the fighter's initiative.

See? Each situation is different, and each requires the application of common sense. You can't play "by the book" without common sense. That's not a cop-out in interpreting the rules, that's the way the rules were designed to be used.

When used like this, there is very little that the initiative rules in the DMG can't resolve for you. The only serious contradiction is which rule you use when attacking a spell caster: "Rule Two" or "Other Weapon Factor Determinants." These two rules are not compatible with each other as written, and neither covers all situations.

David
Stardate 6419.4

[Ska]

I believe I am still correct----your roll is when the other party will begin to act (bad use of language on my part as it implies people standing motionless as Stormcrow seemed to suggest I was saying. That is not what I meant. Time is being spent moving into position, etc but the segment roll indicates THE TELLING BLOW chance or the beginning of spell casting i.e. the caster has his components out, he has positioned himself properly etc.)

This makes segments, which are a critical part of the game system for magic and combat, for casting very important. Stormcrow's interpretation leaves out this very important consideration. For spellcasting it is critical to know WHEN the caster begins. Stormcrow's erroneous interpretation would lead to spell casting times being ignored, where one could use any spell as long as he rolled the high roll. This is not correct.

The way it is done also makes spell casting much more difficult incombat.

Ex. A MU rolls a 2 and a fighter a 1. This means the MU has won, and that he will begin casting on segment 1 of the combat round. Now, the MU is casting a fireball, a 3 segment spell. This means on segment 3 he will get the spell off if, and only if, the fighter misses him with his sword on segment 2 when he tries to make a telling blow on the MU. Under SC's interpretation the MU would always win.

Gygax's system is efficient and elegant once understood. Unfortunatley, it is perhaps the worse explained system I have encountered in some regards.

[Stormcrow]

This makes segments, which are a critical part of the game system for magic and combat, for casting very important. Stormcrow's interpretation leaves out this very important consideration. For spellcasting it is critical to know WHEN the caster begins. Stormcrow's erroneous interpretation would lead to spell casting times being ignored, where one could use any spell as long as he rolled the high roll. This is not correct.

Let's note: this is not my interpretation of the rules, this was my interpretation of the question posed by Dwayanu: "What if 'Rule Two' means that attacks against the spell caster come on the segment of the high roll?"

Ex. A MU rolls a 2 and a fighter a 1. This means the MU has won, and that he will begin casting on segment 1 of the combat round.

Now, the MU is casting a fireball, a 3 segment spell. This means on segment 3 he will get the spell off if, and only if, the fighter misses him with his sword on segment 2 when he tries to make a telling blow on the MU. Under SC's interpretation the MU would always win.

And this STILL contradicts the "Other Weapon Factor Determinants" rule.

Let's suppose you are right: every action in combat is begun on the segment indicated by the opponent's initiative die, including spell casting. Aside from the ugly questions that implies (e.g., "What about charging?" "Can you disrupt a spell before the caster begins casting?"), let's work out the numbers again.

A magic-user casting a fireball vs. a fighter with a spear.

6 & 6: Tie. Spear hits on 6 before fireball at end of segment 8 (cast on segments 6, 7, and 8)
6 & 5: MU wins init. Spear hits on 6 before spell cast on 7
6 & 4: MU wins init. Spear and spell together on 6
6 & 3–1: MU wins init. Spell on 5–3 before spear on 6

5 & 6: Fighter wins init. Spear on 5 before spell on 8
5 & 5: Tie. Spear on 5 before spell on 7
5 & 4: MU wins init. Spear on 5 before spell on 6
5 & 3: MU wins init. Spear and spell together on 5
5 & 2–1: MU wins init. Spell on 4–3 before spear on 5.

4 & 6–5: Fighter wins init. Spear on 4 before spell on 8–7
4 & 4: Tie. Spear on 4 before spell on 6.
4 & 3: MU wins init. Spear on 4 before spell on 5.
4 & 2: MU wins init. Spear and spell together on 4.
4 & 1: MU wins init. Spell on 3 before spear on 4.

3 & 6–4: Fighter wins init. Spear on 3 before spell on 8–6
3 & 3: Tie. Spear on 3 before spell on 5
3 & 2: MU wins init. Spear on 3 before spell on 4
3 & 1: MU wins init. Spear and spell together on 3

2 & 6–3: Fighter wins init. Spear on 2 before spell on 8–5
2 & 2: Tie. Spear on 2 before spell on 4
2 & 1: MU wins init. Spear on 2 before spell on 3

1 & 6–2: Fighter wins init. Spear on 1 before spell on 8–4
1 & 1: Tie. Spear on 1 before spell on 3

Now, the attack against the spell caster never hits on anything except the spell caster's own initiative die segment, so the bit about "the opponent's or his own initiative die roll, whichever is applicable" makes no sense. It will never be the opponent's die roll.

That aside, this interpretation can also be used. Neither one has been proven correct. I am not advocating either or any; I'm simply demonstrating the effects of others' guesses and preferences. Remember, I said there were a lot of ways this could be interpreted.

Now, notice that I created the example with a fighter with a spear. Is he throwing the spear or wielding it in hand-to-hand combat? Do you continue to use "Rule Two," or do you use "Other Weapon Factor Determinants"? You get different results from the two procedures.

David
Stardate 6419.7

[Stormcrow]

P.S.: If you begin your action on the opponent's initiative die, when do you begin acting when there are three sides in the combat?

David
Stardate 6419.7

[AxeMental]

SC : "P.S.: If you begin your action on the opponent's initiative die, when do you begin acting when there are three sides in the combat? "

Is this done in AD&D? I thought there was only 2 sides, the DM (for the bad guys) a player for the good guys. In 3E each player roles and then sticks with that order... but I've NEVER seen this done in AD&D.

[Stormcrow]

Is this done in AD&D? I thought there was only 2 sides, the DM (for the bad guys) a player for the good guys. In 3E each player roles and then sticks with that order. In AD&D order is exchanged each round.

Not three combatants, three sides. As in, the party of player characters encounters a party of goblins fighting a party of orcs, and both the goblins and the orcs would like to kill their original enemies and the player characters...

David
Stardate 6419.8

[AxeMental]

In that case wouldn't you just match by which attacks which.
If:
A is the PC group
B-Orcs
C-Goblins

B vs C are fighting.

A approaches this battle , and attacks both (a 3 way fight begins). B and C continue fighting (this round B roles 6 and C roles a 3) Bs go first.

C attacks both. C roles a 4. Orcs go first against A and C. Then the PCs and finally the Goblins.

If this were PCs vs. 2 groups of NPCs it would work the same, just adjust for spells and WSF.

[Stormcrow]

But we're talking about the theory that your opponents' initiative die determines when, in segments, you begin to act.

Suppose you're a magic-user casting the ubiquitous fireball against two enemy groups, both of whom are trying to stop you from casting the spell. Group A rolls 1, Group B rolls 6. When does your spell go off?

You can't treat the two groups as one group, because they're also fighting each other. This is especially important if the groups have enemy magic-users or clerics...

Anyway, this question was really just an aside to the main analysis of how the "other's die is when you start" interpretation.

David
Stardate 6420.4

[Ska]

Interestring question as to the 3 sides. Axe, I believe, interprets this correctly. As always, it is the PCs versus everyone else.

So, the DM would roll to see when groups B and C begin to act AS TO THE PCs. This will enable the PCs to know on what segment they attack in melee or begin to cast spells.

Now, if the DM wants the PC adversaries to battle each other, than the DM can simply decide which group will act first or simply deciede by rolling a dice or whatever.

The key is PCs versus everyone else. Otherwise, you could also ask why not roll for each PC or monster? Per the rules, I think it is clearly group vs opponent. This also allows for a certain nuber to be used for PC casters.

This interpretation also makes spell casting times very important. Heck, why else even bother listing the segments for each spell?

It also demmonstrates the risk of casting spells which take more time to cast.

[AxeMental]

Yeah, as DM I think the proper thing to do would be to have the orcs and goblins fall under a single role (the bad guys) vs. the PCs (good guys).

After all, the fighting between the orcs and goblins is a DM whim. If the DM chooses to role it out with dice I'd think this would go to "best judgement", likely I'd rule the monsters were simo with each other, or I'd just pick one side (say the orcs) to match up against the PCs role.

Now 3 PCs vs. each other (not uncommon) and 2 are spell casters when does the spell caster go. Yeah, this shows the system is flawed (assuming you role for the other guy is true). Hmm. I'll have to think about that. The way this situation has always worked out in the past is the players naturally created 2 parties (even though it started out as a free-for-all). Perhaps the DM could force something like this (so 2 of the PCs timeing would be placed under 1 role, so they'd be simo to each other vs the other guy. Seems pretty pathetic though. Tough one).

[John Stark]

Resurrecting this thread a bit, as this and others have once again gotten me to thinking about the AD&D initiative rules.

Stormcrow, your point about multiple sides in a combat puts the nail in the coffin of the (recently) fabricated nonsense about AD&D initiative being tied to different sides acting on specific segments as determined by their opponents initiative rolls, adding casting times to those rolls, and so on.

I'm convinced more than ever that this system is a fabrication that came about only recently (the last year or two) that has no basis in how the game was ever actually played, what the rules were ever intended to mean, and only cropped up when EGG began pontificating on a system that he never actually used in the first place (i.e., AD&D initiative) and have never been consistent in his answers about it since people started asking questions online.

[Stormcrow]

Stormcrow, your point about multiple sides in a combat puts the nail in the coffin of the (recently) fabricated nonsense about AD&D initiative being tied to different sides acting on specific segments as determined by their opponents initiative rolls, adding casting times to those rolls, and so on.

Oh sure! If there are three sides in a combat and I'm on side A, does my attack occur on roll B or roll C? Why would I go slower attacking side C (with the lowest roll) than side B? To whose roll do I add my area-of-effect spell's casting time?

[AxeMental]

If there are 3 (or more) sides, I'd simply tie 2 (or more) sides together so its still 1 side vs another side. If for instance, a couple PCs chose to steal the party treasure in the middle of a battle vs. a bunch of knolls in there escape(but also had to fight the knolls) I'd rule they are tied to the PC party (or the knolls) on the spot. Remember, were already doing this in a way with sides in both OD&D and AD&D. Otherwise we'd have each PC and monster role individually as is done in 3E.

John: "of the (recently) fabricated nonsense about AD&D initiative being tied to different sides acting on specific segments as determined by their opponents initiative rolls, adding casting times to those rolls, and so on."

The interpretation presented by SKA is based on the rules as written, just as is Storm Crows. Both are BTB in that way. I don't think you can call either fabricated or nonsensical, as both make since and present logical arguements based on the few rules and examples presented in the text.

Just because you may hate SKAs method (and I understand why having the mental tie to 2E as it does to some of you guys), I don't think its fair to accuse him of being nonsensical. I've read both sides and each presents logical interpretations and both sides sight the written rules that I can read on my own. I don't agree with some of Storm Crows understandings of the rules, but that doesn't make his presentation nonsensical or fabricated.

I think part of what is in question relates to how people interpret the "spirit of the game".

[Ska]

Stark---well reasoned argument (see Stormcrow's posts for example) and less personal thoughts (ie "fabricated nonsense") might actually get people to pay attention to what you are trying to say.

As to he three sides argument---the DMG does not address it. In the DMG it is the PCs versus the world if you will. So, PC side. side orc and side goblin. Under the DMG rules. the PCs will roll and the DM will roll for the orc and goblin side (withone roll representing them). This will allow the PCs (which the game is created for) to know when they begin acting as to combat (spell or melee).

[John Stark]

As to he three sides argument---the DMG does not address it. In the DMG it is the PCs versus the world if you will. So, PC side. side orc and side goblin. Under the DMG rules. the PCs will roll and the DM will roll for the orc and goblin side (withone roll representing them). This will allow the PCs (which the game is created for) to know when they begin acting as to combat (spell or melee).

Care to give me a page reference from the DMG where it says that there are only ever two sides in a combat, or do you want to keep making stuff up out of whole clothe?

Further, you contradict yourself in the same statement. Compare this:

"As to he three sides argument---the DMG does not address it."

To this:

"Under the DMG rules. the PCs will roll and the DM will roll for the orc and goblin side (withone roll representing them)."

Which is it? Is it in the DMG, or isn't it? And if it is, where?

How you can make two completely different claims in the same paragraph is amazing. That's getting a bit too Gygaxesque for me as it pertains to AD&D intiative.