Knights & Knaves Alehouse

Nagora wrote:Well, his name is on the landing page for this site, so that might be a reminder too. My point was more that it's not just one nutter. There's two of us

LOL!

THAT'S THE SPIRIT!

Nagora wrote:

AxeMental wrote:Negora: "This part is true. It's a deduction on my part (and DMPrata's too, for that matter, who arrived at the same conclusion independently)."



If you have no direct evidence just "deduction", why do you think your deduction is superior to another person's (especially when your deduction doesn't "flow" with the presumptions of battle "non-spell casters" are held to (namely the abstraction of what a character or monster is needing to do before they get in their your meaningful action (like finding your footing, avoiding blows, feints, locating targets, avoiding friendly fire etc.)?

Because the other deduction you mention requires a huge amount of invention of new text. As I keep saying, I'm not saying that I'm 100% sure about my interpretation but the d6+ is so wrong in so many ways that it's not in doubt, although if the DM can make it work then fair play to them.

Nagora: how is it that (a magic user standing in a stinking muddy slippery cave with bats and spider webbing all over , arrows flying about, men in his own party (surrounding him) moving and bumping into him, screaming and yelling of orders and suggestions, confusion of hitting your own comrade by mistake, possible back attacks etc.) every other class is slowed down by this chaos before getting in their meaningful action, but not the MU casting MM or sleep? As you say the guy who hits the MU is assumed to get his hit in on segment 1. That seems difficult to believe.

There's two aspects to that. Firstly, two random things in relation to each other are no more random than one random thing in relation to a fixed point (so your chance of rolling the same number as my d6 with your d6 is the same as rolling a 3 or any other specific static number), at least when discussing spell casters and melee. So the system is actually no less abstract in play than the general melee combat system. The other thing, and maybe you're not picking up on this, is that anyone with initiative making a physical (or spell-like) attack will get that attack in before the 1-segment spell. So, the spellcaster is no better off if the other side manages to get the initiative. If they don't, s/he is worse off than the weapon-using opponents as there is still a chance that those opponents will strike first despite losing initiative. So, the magic user standing in a stinking muddy slippery cave with bats and spider webbing all over , arrows flying about etc. is always worse off, initiative-wise, than his companions and foes. Which seems to be the intent of the rules to me.

Additionally, spellcasting, movement, and so on are literally different in that the rules do give us specific non-abstract characteristics for them in units of real time. This is obviously different from missile and melee combat so, whether we think that is a breaking of the abstraction or not, it is clearly a design intent that these things are treated differently in some way.

As of now, the one in OSRIC seems the most plausible (you go when the other guy roles, add your casting time).

It's Stewart's rules; he can run it any way he likes. I'm not going to get on board with "plausable" however. The d6+ system is simply unconnected with AD&D and based on the long-held belief that there is no workable system in the DMG and so the creators of the d6+ system felt free to invent from whole-cloth. My claim is that if we take the clue about spellcasting in surprise along with the rules about interruption and attacks against spellcasters with melee weapons, it makes a lot more sense if we assume that spellcasting and movement starts on seg-1.

When we do that, the need for all these special corner cases about being attacked before commencement, and what happens with spill-over go away because they simply can't happen - which is why they're never explained or considered in any way - and the resulting system is really easy to use and requires a minimum amount of record keeping for a DM who potentially has to handle multiple spellcasters. This is what I mean by "deduction": the system is simpler, uses fewer assumptions, and works well while satisfying at least most of the stated goals of the rules, such as spell casting in melee being fraught with the risk of wasting the spell. Unless we find the original manuscript with the missing section ("Combat Proceedure") then deduction is all we have in terms of "BtB" combat.

As for DMPrata, I remember his name from the past (way back when at DF I believe).

Well, his name is on the landing page for this site, so that might be a reminder too. My point was more that it's not just one nutter. There's two of us

To your points above: consider this example: a 8th level MU (accompanied by his two fighter companions) is casting a 1 segment spell every round in a battle that ends up lasting 10 rounds. Regardless of the exact numbers rolled on initiative dice, if the party looses initiative, and the MU is hit every round (at least once) that means someone attacking the party got off his telling blow in the first 1-5 seconds (as the spell goes off on the 6th second and is interrupted). Thats unrealistically fast for 50% of the combat rounds (or 100% of the rounds if they won all 10 initiative roles and hit him each time).

As far as the "making up out of whole cloth" comment. I believe the d6+ casting time is no more "invention" or filling in the blanks then what you are proposing (both get their source information from the rules, reading them logically, using deduction). Neither case is stated clearly enough in the rules (both require adding) you think your examples are better, SKA thinks his are (and he is turning blue in the face no doubt posting them). They are both equally supported with scant real evidence: The difference is this: 1) SKA's method (you go on the segment of the other guys role, and add casting time) actually works (where IMO yours does not smoothly or logically run...more below), and 2) his method was backed up by Gygax in a Q&A at DF, also Gygax and others have always (or at least for a very long time) used a d10 -low role goes first, and adding casting time. Its a very logical deduction SKA and others are making, not really "out of thin air" (when Gygax himself states that is indeed what he intended).

If you remove the MU in the above example and replace him with an archer say, then its not a big deal (in believe-ability) as its just who goes first within the round. But your system still has the problem of factoring in combat movement (ie. if a goblin with an axe is charging the archer (at x distance on y terrain) can he get to the archer in time to stop his bow shot? Can the guard running to the door (x feet away) get threw it before the archer gets him (even if he wins initiative as he has to clear the distance). What about all the other movement going on at the same time in the room (precisely where is the thief who stated he's "running for the golden idol", where is the giant spider precisely, when the thief reaches the idol "thats crawling along the ceiling"??? In SKA's method I know precisely when the archer is going (example: if DM roles a 5 and party roles a 4 the archer goes on segment 5 (or 5x6=30 seconds or 24-30 seconds into combat of a 60 second round) at what segment the thief grabs the idol (if its before or after the archer getting off his bow shot) I also know if the spider makes it in time to drop onto the thief (as its protecting the idol). Obviously, this micro-management doesn't always come up. But its nice to have when it does, because its neutral and requires no ad hoc. Is it what was intended by EGG? Well, based on how he was gaming after he wrote the books, yes probably. In any event playing your and DM Prata's way or SKAs D6+casting time, or just high role goes first all work. Non are inherently more correct. And honestly, thats probably part of the greatness of the game. Every table does it slightly differently, every DM (even in the same night) is free to change it up. Thats great because the player doesn't know what his chances are (not unlike in real life, giving a less gamey calculating feel). It clearly keeps control in an impartial DMs hands (no rules lawyers need speak up), and it (be design or not) increases the inventiveness and ownership of the game by the DM and his players.

As far as OSRIC rules go (though you'd need to ask Mythmere and P&P directly) I believe the rules that were chosen were as close to BtB as possible (simply restated) they are not P&Ps rules. Regarding rules that were unclear and needed clarifying (one way or another), if memory serves me they used what was the best supported at the time (based on discussions here and elsewhere) someone like Foster probably remembers.

OK I just realized what you mean by "landing page" thats the K-K.com (had to google what the heck you meant) . I go directly to the forums so rarely see that (cool to see the cover of OSRIC ). never noticed the link to DM PRata. Glad to see he has a link, but still stand by my comment. I remember he had faulty logic on some of his calls.

Nagora (to Ska) wrote:but as usual you pretend "not to follow" simple English when it clashes with your presumptions and pet theory.

The Cambridge Dictionary

the initiative C1 [ S ]
​
the power or opportunity to win an advantage:

to seize/take/lose the initiative

What is Future Tense in English?
What does future tense mean? The future tense of verbs expresses events or actions that have not yet happened and that will happen at some point in the future.

Future Tense Forms
There are four forms of the future tense. They include:

simple future

You will eat.

future progressive

You are eating.

future perfect

You will have eaten.

future perfect progressive

You will have been eating.

DMG pg 62 wrote:It (initiative - ed) indicates which of the two parties will act/react.

What is the BTB tense of this sentence, Nagora?

Initiative is to determine which of two parties that desire to act, but are not yet acting, may start before the other.

That's it.

It doesn't apply to every action in D&D, because there isn't an overriding magic in D&D that forces actions to all complete before someone else opposing you gets to try again.

Nagora wrote:In my proposed system, it does do that, but again you pretend not to understand.

Some irony here

Re: surprise, it's just another action, right? This is like how putting the words phantasmal force around an ad-hoc action suddenly causes people to wonder how to run it.

There is no anomaly with actions carrying over from surprise into the round.

Nagora wrote:Well, I think in the original plan, and in practise, surprise is part of the first round, which is why you can only start casting on the first segment (which, I assert is the normal case and entirely consistent with my argument). I know that most of the time we don't play it that way but if one person is not surprised I think the concept is that their actions are part of the first round.

Nagora wrote:I think that's circular reasoning, to be honest. You're defining initiative and then arguing in favour of that definition by pointing out its effects.

Some more irony, because it seems like your nested response to me above is also circular reasoning of the sort you ascribe to my earlier post.

It's possible to cast spells both in multiple surprise segments and after the first initiative roll. They can't all be the same round.

Initiative is for people without an action at the start of a round, not those continuously acting from the round before.

Nagora wrote:I think that's a very narrow definition - initiative can be for people responding to what's just happened.

Yes, but at the start of the round they're rolling to find out when that response will start. It hasn't started yet.

Rolls quantify unknowns. We don't roll for knowns.

nagora wrote:Perhaps. If you have two characters who are equally capable how do you decide the outcome of some contest? If you know they're equal then the only option is to toss a coin or perhaps some similar mechanism which allows for the possibility of a draw. I'm not really sure where you were going with this, though.

First, this has nothing to do with actions carrying over. Which is the "known" I'm talking about - we don't wonder when an action that started in the past, started. Initiative is to find out what the order of actions starting that round takes place.

Initiative has nothing to do with who finishes first. The only factor in who finishes first is how long something takes.

Nagora wrote:That flies in the face of a fair bit of printed text which tells us that initiative is about finding an opening in combat before your opponent. Melee and missile combat have no specific time requirements and the whole system is sort of built around that idea - if you take spell casting and movement out of the question then there simply isn't any consideration of how long things take, even when using weapon speed factors.

It flies in the face of no text. Which is why you're bringing up things that start and finish in 1 segment - a martial attack - into a discussion that was specifically about spellcasting and movement. You're conflating initiative as being when these finish, when that's incidental to when they start. And then saying initiative is telling you when they finish. But that only applies to actions taking 1 segment.

If you drink a potion, it doesn't take effect on your initiative - that's when you drink it. Then there's a delay of a specific number of segments.

They started an action prior to anyone being able to contest it. When everyone else gains the ability to act, there is an existing constant - the spellcaster is unloading a spell in 2 segments, and the only question is if someone else will do something to interrupt what is otherwise going to happen.

Nagora wrote:Yeah. Same as normal, but effectively with 2-segments knocked off the casting time. This is entirely consistent with my interpretation; it's not even a special case, which it is in the d6+ system.

It's not a special case in d6+ initiative either. As I continually explain. Only you insists that spellcasting never takes place at the start of a round in d6+. The people who use it say spellcasting can be taking place at the start of a round when 1) the caster casts before a melee starts, or 2) is casting before a round starts, from the previous round.

No special case.

This is the same for someone taking an action longer than a round to complete. No, they don't have to roll initiative in the next round. They're acting already, continuously.

nagora wrote:Let's look at mixed surprise again. Illusionists have high dex so let's assume that your "attacker" has 2-segments of surprise to start casting a 4-seg spell, but a "defender" illusionist is unaffected by surprise while his companions are. We now have the situation that when "round 1" starts both the attacking MU and the defending Illusionist have been casting for 2 segments. What happens if:

a) They are both casting 4-segment spells,
b) The illusionist is casting a 3-segment spell.

What do you do in these cases?

What I read in your example is that 2 MUs surprised a party with illusionists and non-spellcasters. But the MUs have no one else with them - no party, no flunkies, no summoned monsters.

So there is no initiative roll. Anyone attacking martially can do so immediately if within range (either =<10 feet, or within missile range) on segment 1. Or, they can charge if not within 10' and trying to melee. They will attack in the segment indicated by their distance divided by their charging move rate; this is likely segment 1 or 2 since they were surprised.

The illusionist casts at the end of segment 1

The MUs cast at the end of segment 2. If they've taken no damage from the above.


(EDIT - if in example A "both" means 1 MU and 1 Illusionist, then they both finish on segment 2 - I'm unclear on how "both" is used in the paragraph above and then again in the #1/#2 scenarios below that)



I get why you fight action carryover. Your system absolutely breaks if at least one of the following doesn't apply:

1) The enemy action started at the beginning of the round, or
2) the enemy action ends at the end of a round.

You must have one of these two things, because if an initiative roll doesn't apply to an action in process (say, a spell with multiple round casting time) you can't determine "abstract relative order". This isn't important for something that continues until finally culminating as the last completed action of a round, but is crucial if something ended in the middle of one.

If there was no opposition starting an action that round; if the only opposition was a spellcaster continuing a spell from a previous round, then no initiative would be rolled - the DM would simply ask what everyone was doing and compare durations - any physical attack would take place immediately; no one is fighting back, so no circling or feinting is required. If trying to cast a spell compare its casting time to the known finish point of the other action in-process. Etc.

Nagora wrote:Yes, but the rules given tell us when those ending times are, in the case of weapon attacks, and the printed rules bear no resemblance to the d6+ system.

One of us isn't understanding the other, here. I'm describing a scenario that doesn't roll any dice for initiative. Not every round requires a contested initiative roll.

If a fighter encounters a spellcaster in the middle of summoning an elemental, with 5 rounds of casting left to go; no one else around - do you make either the fighter or spellcaster roll initiative? What two opposed and future action starts are being determined here?

Someone upset that they could win initiative against a MUs summoned mooks, and act before the mooks, but also going after the completion of a spell in process for more than a round because that fixed time terminates very early in this round, is acting entitled.

Nagora wrote:No they're not, they're asking for consistency. The d6+ system is inconsistent in its handling of the idea of having initiative. Most of the time it happens to work as described in the book where having initiative means that you go first. But because, unlike the book and completely needlessly, the d6+ system insists on making everything into a specific point of time, it creates situations where someone engaged in 2-segments of activity in a round may or may not act first without regard to who has initiative. The only way to explain that is to fall back on the fundamental premise of the d6+ system which is that huge amount of time in the 1-minute combat round is spend standing around doing nothing.

No, they're not asking for consistency. It's entitlement. You said it yourself - you think having initiative means acting first. Which requires no one else acting in-process at the start of a round because then finishing first isn't guaranteed. That's entitlement.

It's also inconsistent with plain English. You're trying to create wholecloth a definition of the word initiative that is both specific to AD&D and also inconsistent with the meaning of the word outside of D&D.

Lastly, we both agree a round is 60 seconds, right? And the fixed casting time of a 2-segment spell (or other action) is 12 seconds, right? So...there's 48 extra seconds either way. I don't think "nothing" happens in that 48 seconds. Just "nothing memorable".

But you've heard this. It doesn't stop you from mischaracterizing the other arguments to anyone who will listen.

This isn't logic. It can only be a break in logic if one starts with the premise that winning initiative means always finishing before the things that can hurt you, hurt you.

That's not promised anywhere in AD&D.

nagora wrote:Hmmm. Well, I'd say that for someone with a weapon it pretty well is. It's not guaranteed for someone doing something that takes a long time, certainly.

Again, no one disputes martial attack vs martial attack - initiative pretty much always tells, absent something like a charge or the other fighter having more attack routines than you.

Nagora wrote:But we're back at the perversity of your interpretation where the rules only give the losing initiative side a chance to act first if the winning side is engaged in something that takes a long time, but you suddenly want to allow the opposite.

If you're casting a spell that carries over to the following round, you already lost an initiative buddy, I hate to break it to you. Side B got a full round of attacks in with the carry-over character in Side A doing nothing the previous round.

I feel no sympathy for the idea that in the next round Side B should be guaranteed to attack before the Side A carry-over caster a 2nd time, against a spell started in a prior round, Just because Side B win initiative again against the rest of Side A trying to start different actions in the new round. That's entitled. Side A had their shots. In d6+, winning initiative means you can delay your attack against a spellcaster until they start casting, if you so choose. Apparently they didn't hit for shit. Now the caster finally gets off the spell, getting only one action over two rounds to do it, and they're whining? Please.

If a spell is reaaaalllly long, like 8 or 9 segment casting time, it's possible that you could carry over into another round on d6+ having won initiative in the round casting starts, but that's the farthest end of the probability curve. And either way - all attacking with weapons for either side in that case were able to attack when they could disrupt.

Nagora wrote:Answer me this: if there is no spell casting, potion drinking, movement and so on happening, just a straight up melee and/or missile combat, is there anything in the rules that suggest that a person with initiative will go before someone without it?

If everyone is in melee or missile range and just wailing on each other? No charges, no nothing? Then yes, they are said to possess the initiative and can start acting before the other. Since the moment of the telling blow in a round of melee attacks represent a single thrust with potential to harm, of course they can act before someone losing - such an attack doesn't last 2 or more segments; it starts and completes on a single segment. They could also choose to not do so, but that's their choice. They aren't forced to act on the first possible instance.

Conversely a 3rd level sword-fighter winning initiative against a 13th level sword-fighter isn't even guaranteed first chance to strike, even having won initiative. Even if the 3rd level fighter is an archer with 18 dex, they act after a 13th level sword-fighter already in melee range. Winning initiative is always subject to special circumstances. It isn't absolute. Carryover actions are just one possible way you can win initiative and not act first.

Nagora wrote:Secondary question: in the book, is there any way of knowing when during the round the resulting strikes take place?

I've already told you that I think #2 on the list in "Spell casting during melee" is extrapolating a general rule - that everyone's first attack routine happens in between segments 1 and 6, which is based on the die results.

that its inclusion in the list is attempting to describe (very badly) a further disadvantage spellcasters face - regardless of whether they win or lose initiative, attacks directed at them will come in segments 1-6 after they've started casting, which must happen no earlier than segment 1 and no later than segment 5 if the other side lost initiative; if attacked in segment 6 the other side either won or tied - so that they're always attacked at their most vulnerable, whether or not the one attacking them "won" initiative or "lost" it.

So to lead into your last Q

Nagora wrote:I doubt that you'll surprise anyone with the answers, so the final part of the breakdown is: do you think that spell casting in melee is supposed to be at an initiative disadvantage or not? In other words, do the rules give you the impression that a person casting a spell who loses initiative is better off than someone who loses initiative while using a weapon?

Absolutely not. d6+ is much worse for spellcasters than yours, unless the DM forces something attacking a caster-in-process to act on the earliest possible segment the attacker can, in contravention of the rules allowing delay, and basic common sense. ("possession of initiative allows the individual to take action or reaction as desired..."). In d6+ it doesn't benefit of the caster to lose initiative.

Plus, if your initiative roll is so poor you don't cast any spell at all that round, did you really win? The spell only goes off in round 2 if everyone else fucked up so badly that you took no damage while achieving nothing in round 1. But round 1 was a big fat zero for you.

I'm not asking you to adopt it. But it would be nice if when we have these discussions you'd accept that you're not characterizing d6+ very accurately in how you describe it to others.

Well, my train was late so I don't have much time this morning but I think something you said in that post does at least shed some light on where the difference is:

I've already told you that I think #2 on the list in "Spell casting during melee" is extrapolating a general rule - that everyone's first attack routine happens in between segments 1 and 6, which is based on the die results.

I see it as an exception to the general rule that we don't know or care what segment an attack comes on.

I think the rules are generally trying to avoid doing that, which is why removing timed actions leaves us with no references to segments. Without timed actions, the rules are very simple: high roll goes first. It seems odd to me to look at a system which works completely without reference to segments for all weapon combat and then when spell casting with segments is added (under a separate heading which specifies that its not a general rule) to assume that the latter is the general rule and the former is the special. but if that's what you do, then I can see how you ended up where you are.

I find the rest of your post totally unconvincing for reasons we've hammered out up-thread. No matter how you look at it, your system requires a lot of text to be added with no justification or even benefit for the game play. I posted a list of the questions that d6+ raises which are not answered in the text earlier so I'm not going to do so again.

in the mixed initiative example I meant a and b to be two difference scenarios, one where a MU was casting a 4-segment spell at the illusionist who was casting a 4-segment defensive spell of some sort, and the same set up but with the illusionist casting a 3-segment spell. So in a), I was curious whether you would roll initiative to split the two spells or leave them as tied. It seems that you treat this differently than you would if surprise had not been rolled at all, despite neither spell caster being surprised, is that right?

AxeMental wrote:To your points above: consider this example: a 8th level MU (accompanied by his two fighter companions) is casting a 1 segment spell every round in a battle that ends up lasting 10 rounds. Regardless of the exact numbers rolled on initiative dice, if the party looses initiative, and the MU is hit every round (at least once) that means someone attacking the party got off his telling blow in the first 1-5 seconds (as the spell goes off on the 6th second and is interrupted). Thats unrealistically fast for 50% of the combat rounds (or 100% of the rounds if they won all 10 initiative roles and hit him each time).

Well, that's pretty unlucky. There are certainly limits to the realism of the system, and the price of any workable combat system is that it trades some realism for something playable. But I agree, that is the situation. I'm not sure that it's less realistic than interrupting something that's not started, though.

As far as the "making up out of whole cloth" comment. I believe the d6+ casting time is no more "invention" or filling in the blanks then what you are proposing (both get their source information from the rules, reading them logically, using deduction). Neither case is stated clearly enough in the rules (both require adding) you think your examples are better, SKA thinks his are (and he is turning blue in the face no doubt posting them). They are both equally supported with scant real evidence:

Ska's version has no evidence other than what I see as the exceptional rule about attacks on spell casters during melee which seems to me to only apply when the spellcaster wins initiative.

The difference is this: 1) SKA's method (you go on the segment of the other guys role, and add casting time) actually works (where IMO yours does not smoothly or logically run...more below), and 2) his method was backed up by Gygax in a Q&A at DF,

As was mine, unfortunately.

If you remove the MU in the above example and replace him with an archer say, then its not a big deal (in believe-ability) as its just who goes first within the round. But your system still has the problem of factoring in combat movement (ie. if a goblin with an axe is charging the archer (at x distance on y terrain) can he get to the archer in time to stop his bow shot? Can the guard running to the door (x feet away) get threw it before the archer gets him (even if he wins initiative as he has to clear the distance). What about all the other movement going on at the same time in the room (precisely where is the thief who stated he's "running for the golden idol", where is the giant spider precisely, when the thief reaches the idol "thats crawling along the ceiling"???

I keep pointing out that the rules apply to any timed action so movement is completely addressed in every case where it matters.

In SKA's method I know precisely when the archer is going (example: if DM roles a 5 and party roles a 4 the archer goes on segment 5 (or 5x6=30 seconds or 24-30 seconds into combat of a 60 second round) at what segment the thief grabs the idol (if its before or after the archer getting off his bow shot) I also know if the spider makes it in time to drop onto the thief (as its protecting the idol).

The book system is very similar, IMO. The spider wins initiative so attacks against it (without speed factors) come on segment 5. Similarly, the thief fumbles or something for 5 segments, then moves off at his/her move rate per segment. By that time the spider will probably have closed to combat and get a free attack if the thief tries to move out of range. I suppose the spider might charge, which would change things a little bit. Anyway, the point is that spell casting and movement are treated the same - they're both actions with non-abstract time requirements. The book generally talks about spellcasting because that's the focus of the text but it does mention "engaged in activities other than striking blows" when it looks at weapons with speed factors - a section which completely contradicts d6+ as a general system.

If the DM rolled a 4 and the party a 5 then the DM knows everything he needs to know: the archer attacks the spider before the monster <does something the archer doesn't want it to do> and the thief doesn't fumble and moves off immediately, gaining their full movement for the round presumably away from the spider, not knowing or caring at this point whether it is still alive. If it is alive then a comparison of move rates will determine if the thief is caught; if not then everything's settled without worrying about segments which are not needed.

Negora, do you have the actual example of EGG discussing and supporting your interpretation? I realize he contradicted himself when people asked him (hearing this second hand), but I don't recall seeing this particular discussion.

To be clear (as already mentioned earlier), none of the methods are directly supported by the written rules other then high role goes first on a d6. What to do with the segments in casting time is not explained and is anyones best guess. Here are a few points in no particular order (hopefully we all agree with)

1) 2E sucks!
2) Rounds are a minute long (and there are many "unrealistic" abstractions made, for the sake of making a combat system work. For instance, only getting to fire off 2 arrows in 60 seconds of combat (regardless of the set up.). These mental "stretches" are a necessary evil (and allow for things like durations of spells to be significant). When actually played its not a problem, and in truth players caught in the action think of it in a blow by blow kind of way (more or less) and don't mentally dwell on any of the oddness.

3) Initiative is primarily to capture order of attack to see who gets hit when (important if you kill someone they won't be able to kill you). However, within that order (during that minute long time frame) we have to figure out "movement" on the battle field, delayed actions (when things turn on or off during the round and where people effected by it are located in the room/battlefield), casting start and finish and carry overs from the previous round (things that started but did not conclude in the previous minute).

4) Adventuring and combat are a form of "make believe" that takes place in our heads in a world just like ours (in terms of laws other then a few minor differences that don't allow for things like steam power and gunpowder), we picture moving about with the passing of time, etc. So, its best if the rules encourage rather then discourage this experience. The more fluid the system works the better. The more the player doesn't think about the rules (but concentrates on action) the better. The assumption by the players is that the DM is objective and fare. He is using a system (the books or his own) to keep track of time and order of action, amongst other things.


Given those 4 presumptions (which I think we all can agree on) and if we assume EGG (and his co-writers) also had those assumptions (which is logical), all we can do is try to find evidence within the text of rules that don't exist that best fit the assumptions. For instance what system best explains how to use segments of casting time. Your hitting of the 1 segment caster every time doesn't sit well with the imagination (it goes against the premise of the game IMO, it seems unreasonable that every time an MU is hit its that the guy hitting him was able to get his blow in on the first 1-5 seconds.


The game also offers some other rules that (to greater and lesser extent) are optional. I include in this (in no particular order) charging rules, unarmed combat, WSF, helmet rules, armor/weapon (forget the name of that), movement/encumbrance/marching etc. (no need to be anal, common sense is fine), I'm sure there are more.

If you focus in on just the core issue (initiative) and disregard the other stuff you are left with how many competing interpretations? At least two (SKA's and Negora's) in this case.
Neither is BtB.

SKA wrote this (back on page 5):


DMG Page 65
SPELL CASTING DURING MELEE
These functions are fully detailed in the PHB. Their commencement is dictated by initiative determination as with other attack forms, but their culmination is subject to the stated casting time.


DMG Page 61

ENCOUNTERS, COMBAT, AND INITIATIVE

4. Determine the results of whatever actions are decided upon by the party with initiative:
D. Discharge missiles or magical device attacks or cast spells...

5. Determine the results of whatever actions are decided upon by the party which lost the initiative (as per A through H above.)

Yes, many actions DO begin on a rolled segment ( a better way to look at it is an important action that can be successfully attempted begin on a rolled segment)
See DMG page 61 under paragraph 4 for a list of the many actions that can be attempted during your turn during initiative.

I am in no way assuming that a spell that has not been started can be interrupted, in fact I am saying the exact opposite.


Negora, what are the exact DMG text qoutes you are using again? I skimmed threw and didn't see them.


That EGG played 1E (and others) early on, by using a d10 with the low role winning, and added casting time to it, suggests that he probably did think the spell casting time was added to the role. The d6 was probably chosen because it lands faster and is easier to read (using a d10 to do initiative sucks, I've tried it, it adds too much time to game play). High role goes first was probably used because thats how it worked in other earlier games (the mental gymnastics takes place when you use for when you get your telling blow in on the other sides role).

SKA's method and yours ("casting magic starts on segment 1 in combat rounds") aren't addressed in combat they have to be inferred. What we do know is all combatants are trying to "start" on the first second of each round, but the "telling blow" comes in some time later (but you are saying, the only telling blow we know when it occurs at is the MU casting a 1 segment spell...it goes off on the 6th second of a 60 second round (is that correct Negora?)

p65DMG wrote: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. (If the spell caster’s side won the initiative with a roll of 5, the attack must come then, not on the opponent’s losing roll of 4 or less.) Thus, all such attacks will occur on the 1st-6th segments of the round.

[/quote]

I can understand this above quote from the DMG in context with SKA's assumptions. But I can't with yours. Especially if we import EGGs use of a d10 in his house rules of his game.

I also still can't figure out how you track movement in a room. I am not, by any stretch, a hex player. But when I DM I do like to know if a PC is even a foot away from the radius circle of a fire ball detonating. This is because I want to be an impartial DM. The players don't move on a hex grid (I dislike using them as its a constant mental reminder its a game, I prefer figs on a table cloth or wooden table) but in my mind I know where they are (and I sometimes have graph paper on my side (or use the hexed DMs map and pencil them in). I will slow things down at times if conditions for movement are bad (or partly blocked).

Again, I understand how to track movement in SKA's method d6+ (I guess your calling it). But I can't understand yours. Likewise I understand how EGG does it with the d10 low role goes first.

If your house system (also used by DMPrata) turned out to be correct, it is very wacky indeed.



As Franc pointed out already, the bottom line is (per EGG) its always the DMs call. I understand wanting to know what was intended in the rules (and finding evidence...and sometimes we did in the past), but its not a big deal regardless.


“It is the spirit of the game, not the letter of the rules which is important. Never hold to the letter written, nor allow some barracks room lawyer to force quotations from the rule books upon you, if it goes against the obvious intent of the game. As you hew the line with respect to conformity to major systems and uniformity of play in general, also be certain the game is mastered by you and not by your players. Within the broad parameters given in the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons volumes, you are creator and final arbiter. By ordering things as they should be, the game as a whole first, you campaign next and your participants thereafter, you will be playing Advanced Dungeons & Dragons as it was meant to be.”

Dungeon Master’s Guide (page 230), Gary Gygax

Nagora, both the PHB and the DMG contain language that initiative determines when spell casting begins. You may think this is "bullshit", but never the less the core books mention this.
Your all spell casting starts on segment 1 is a house rule you made up. It is printed nowhere in the core rule books.

You can play any way you like with any house rule you like ( I do), but in a btb thread your way is not supported by the rules. I can "pretend" all I want, but pretending the core rule books contain language that spell casting begins on segment 1 still will not change the fact that no such rule actually exist in the printed rule books.

I think I have reached the limits of my ability to explain my position to you. I can only imagine what your response to EOTB's definition of initiative will be.

AxeMental wrote:Negora, do you have the actual example of EGG discussing and supporting your interpretation? I realize he contradicted himself when people asked him (hearing this second hand), but I don't recall seeing this particular discussion.

I'll see if I can dig it out; I think it was on DF and in relation to the value of 1-segment spells and whether it was safe for arch-mages to walk the street at night.

To be clear (as already mentioned earlier), none of the methods are directly supported by the written rules other then high role goes first on a d6. What to do with the segments in casting time is not explained and is anyones best guess.

We're not that clueless - we're told in two places what to do with segments in relation to spellcasting "and other activity other than striking blows" on p65 and pp66-67. The point about spell casting during surprise only being on the first segment seems significant to me too.

Here are a few points in no particular order (hopefully we all agree with)

1) 2E sucks!

Hoorah!

2) Rounds are a minute long (and there are many "unrealistic" abstractions made, for the sake of making a combat system work. For instance, only getting to fire off 2 arrows in 60 seconds of combat (regardless of the set up.). These mental "stretches" are a necessary evil (and allow for things like durations of spells to be significant). When actually played its not a problem, and in truth players caught in the action think of it in a blow by blow kind of way (more or less) and don't mentally dwell on any of the oddness.

Yep.

3) Initiative is primarily to capture order of attack to see who gets hit when (important if you kill someone they won't be able to kill you). However, within that order (during that minute long time frame) we have to figure out "movement" on the battle field, delayed actions (when things turn on or off during the round and where people effected by it are located in the room/battlefield), casting start and finish and carry overs from the previous round (things that started but did not conclude in the previous minute).

I agree. In fact I see the emphasis on order as a key characteristic - and by the same token, the lack of concern about exact timing in the general case as another characteristic.

4) Adventuring and combat are a form of "make believe" that takes place in our heads in a world just like ours (in terms of laws other then a few minor differences that don't allow for things like steam power and gunpowder), we picture moving about with the passing of time, etc. So, its best if the rules encourage rather then discourage this experience. The more fluid the system works the better. The more the player doesn't think about the rules (but concentrates on action) the better. The assumption by the players is that the DM is objective and fare. He is using a system (the books or his own) to keep track of time and order of action, amongst other things.

Yes. This is going well. We should talk about things we agree on more often

Given those 4 presumptions (which I think we all can agree on) and if we assume EGG (and his co-writers) also had those assumptions (which is logical), all we can do is try to find evidence within the text of rules that don't exist that best fit the assumptions. For instance what system best explains how to use segments of casting time. Your hitting of the 1 segment caster every time doesn't sit well with the imagination (it goes against the premise of the game IMO, it seems unreasonable that every time an MU is hit its that the guy hitting him was able to get his blow in on the first 1-5 seconds.

I certainly agree with that but it's a fairly unlikely case insofar that 1-segment spells are quite rare on the battle-field; even a wand of magic missiles takes 3-segments, doesn't it? A stronger objection, IMO, is that spell-casting Vs spell-casting becomes a fairly dull affair, nothing like the wizard battles of animation or, for that matter, TSR's War of Wizards. From a taste point of view, this is what I like least about it.

The game also offers some other rules that (to greater and lesser extent) are optional. I include in this (in no particular order) charging rules, unarmed combat, WSF, helmet rules, armor/weapon (forget the name of that), movement/encumbrance/marching etc. (no need to be anal, common sense is fine), I'm sure there are more.

If you focus in on just the core issue (initiative) and disregard the other stuff you are left with how many competing interpretations? At least two (SKA's and Negora's) in this case.

I think that's broadly true. When talking about d6+ there's a complication in that some people use individual initiative and some don't but I think we're all agreed that's a house rule, as is any d10 system.

Neither is BtB.

Well, at least one isn't

p65DMG wrote: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. (If the spell caster’s side won the initiative with a roll of 5, the attack must come then, not on the opponent’s losing roll of 4 or less.) Thus, all such attacks will occur on the 1st-6th segments of the round.

I can understand this above quote from the DMG in context with SKA's assumptions. But I can't with yours. Especially if we import EGGs use of a d10 in his house rules of his game.

I don't think dragging a third system into an already fraught conversation is going to help, so I'm going to ignore the d10 issue. As regards to the p65 quote here's a detailed answer:

• The general rule is that all things being equal initiative decides who goes first. So, what is equal? Well, at least melee Vs melee and missile Vs missile. If we look at the list A-H in the case of an initiative tie, it seems that missile fire comes before melee and the options are arranged broadly in the order of likely distance from the enemy. In the same case, spells on each side are commenced at the same time, and are commenced at the same time as missile fire.
• It seems clear that having initiative means that all things being equal, you will complete your action in time to interrupt a similar opposing action. So, if firing a missile during tied initiative would have interrupted a spell, then it certainly will if you win initiative. So, consequently, segments are not needed in this situation. There is inequality but it is all in favour of the bowman (or swordsman).
• This means that we only need further rules for when the bow/swordsman loses initiative. We are in fact given two sets of rules. The one on pp66-67 directly discusses weapon speed factors so we know that's for melee. The rule on p65 does not discuss speed factors and we're left with the conclusion that this is for the cases where speed factors are not involved, which are: natural weapons, missile weapons, spell-like powers and perhaps spells and devices.
  
  But it can't logically apply to spells in the general case as many spells are more than 6 segments long, so they simply can't always strike in segments 1-6. A similar argument applies to devices as there's no rule that says that they have activation periods of 6 or less.
  
  So p65 is discussing attacks from natural weapons, missile weapons, spell-like powers (and melee weapons when the DM is not using wsf).

That of course leaves the question of attacks by spells. We're simply never told what to do - as I say, p65 is not discussing spell attacks as it simply makes no sense in the context of segments 1-6. d6+ doesn't help as a d6 roll of 3 combined with a 4-segment spell breaks the requirement.

At the same time, note that if two spells are the same length then they would be simultaneous in tied initiative, so if caster A has initiative we know his spell will complete before the equal-length spell of caster B. Since the spells are the same length we only need to assume that the second caster hesitated for a second or two to justify the requirement that initiative has determined commencement time. This is the point Ska can't get his head around - there's no need for commencement to be delayed by entire segments to fulfil the requirement of the text..

So, why would this not be stated? Is it a mistake? Or was the writer assuming something that wasn't stated (perhaps something left out in the missing combat procedure section)? I think the answer is that the writer was assuming that everything starts acting at the start of the round. So, when on p67 he writes about a segment indicator of zero he's happy that the reader will see that as meaning "before a 1 segment spell completes", just as a result of 1 means "before a 2 segment spell completes".

DMG p67 wrote:It has a speed factor of only 2, so it will strike prior to spell completion if the initiative roll which lost was 1-4 (the adjusted segment indicator being 1, 0, 1, 2 respectively) and simultaneously if the die score was a 5.

DMG p67 wrote:Note that even though a spell takes but 1 segment to complete, this is 6 seconds, and during that period a reacting attacker might be able to attack the magic-user or other spell caster prior to actual completion of the spell!

Note that neither of these statements, nor p65, say anything about determining when the spell commenced; why would they if spell-casting starts at the start of the round?

I also still can't figure out how you track movement in a room. Again, I understand how to track movement in SKA's method d6+ (I guess your calling it). But I can't understand yours.

I'm not sure what there is to understand. Figures can move MV/10 per segment. Unless there is some reason to assume that they paused or fumbled or something at the start of the round, everyone gets their movement rate every round; 12" move means 12" movement. What's wacky about that? Obviously nothing so what is it you think I'm doing?

Train's pulling in; off to work.

Nagora wrote:I'm going to ignore the d10 issue.

That's a 2e thing, anyway...

Philotomy Jurament wrote:

Nagora wrote:I'm going to ignore the d10 issue.

That's a 2e thing, anyway...

I thought you were keeping out of this

You did say something on the other thread that makes me think I should go back and look at Swords and Spells. I've worried that the "segment 0" system works too well. The implication is that either I've imagined it or that it was heavily playtested, which isn't something I associate with the DMG. If it grew out of S&S, then that might explain it.

Nagora wrote:I thought you were keeping out of this

I am. I just couldn't resist having a bit of fun by pointing out the d10/2e association. (I'm just causing trouble...)

Nagora wrote:You did say something on the other thread that makes me think I should go back and look at Swords and Spells.

You might find the way it handles the 2 bow shots per round interesting. It might modify your thinking on how to handle that in the context of AD&D.

For once, I manage to actually use the K&K search function properly. Here is the Q&A thread related to initiative (cut and pasted to K&K but originally from DF). Take a read threw. I realize its just one more in a list of EGG discussions where he states different things. Still, its blow by blow and seems pretty detailed. I would like to compare this to the Q&A you were referring to as well.

http://knights-n-knaves.com/phpbb3/view ... tive+spell

I would be nice to get all the various Q&As with EGG related to this topic and put them in one place.

I remember thinking Jerry's site would last 6 months tops (given our track record of starting 1E sites)


I'm just projecting my cruel, absurdist sense of humor onto Gary. If I were the veteran game designer being asked obscure rules questions twenty years after the fact, I'd make sure that all my answers were perfectly reasonably, yet entirely different from the last answer I gave on the same subject. I'd probably keep a notebook of all my different answers just to make sure. I'd also start boning up on the old rules to make sure that I got some things wrong. That's just the kind of guy I am.

R.A.

AxeMental wrote:For once, I manage to actually use the K&K search function properly. Here is the Q&A thread related to initiative (cut and pasted to K&K but originally from DF). Take a read threw of it. I realize its just one more in a list of EGG discussions where he states different things. Still, its blow by blow and seems pretty detailed. I would like to compare this to the Q&A you were referring to as well.

http://knights-n-knaves.com/phpbb3/view ... tive+spell

While I continue to look for the specific post I was thinking of, here's something Matt posted on DF with some quotes he had gathered from Gary.

https://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/view ... 50#p758242

The specific part that backs me up is:

Matthew wrote:

Col_Pladoh wrote:Initiative: Yes, as the spell-caster announces intent first, that means he is commencing the activation of the spell at the beginning of the round, so initiative does not affect that.

While this fits in conceptually with the issue of d6+ interruption problems I honestly don't believe Gary ever played initiative as a formal system of any kind and simply trusted himself to adjudicate fairly and his players to accept that.

The DMG is the classic example of the clash between Gary The Player and Gary The Businessman. The desire for tournament play drove the construction of a game quite unlike something he wanted to play at home.

Nagora wrote:

AxeMental wrote:For once, I manage to actually use the K&K search function properly. Here is the Q&A thread related to initiative (cut and pasted to K&K but originally from DF). Take a read threw of it. I realize its just one more in a list of EGG discussions where he states different things. Still, its blow by blow and seems pretty detailed. I would like to compare this to the Q&A you were referring to as well.

http://knights-n-knaves.com/phpbb3/view ... tive+spell

While I continue to look for the specific post I was thinking of, here's something Matt posted on DF with some quotes he had gathered from Gary.

https://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/view ... 50#p758242

The specific part that backs me up is:

Matthew wrote:

Col_Pladoh wrote:Initiative: Yes, as the spell-caster announces intent first, that means he is commencing the activation of the spell at the beginning of the round, so initiative does not affect that.

While this fits in conceptually with the issue of d6+ interruption problems I honestly don't believe Gary ever played initiative as a formal system of any kind and simply trusted himself to adjudicate fairly and his players to accept that.

The DMG is the classic example of the clash between Gary The Player and Gary The Businessmaninit. The desire for tournament play drove the construction of a game quite unlike something he wanted to play at home.

That’s what I would figure. Why not even change it up now and then. That he used d10 method per Foster and SKA (pretty far back) which is basically the same idea in some ways (ie. spell casting starts on the dice role -not on the first segment) might favor SKA's interpretation (that the rule books were written by EGG while he was gaming in that way).
That he responds so definitely in the thread from 2005 above, it makes it even more likely.