Knights & Knaves Alehouse

We've had a question from a listener:

"How does the blink spell work with d6+?"

Happy to open that one to the floor, if there's any takers? Obviously, if spell-casting starts at the start of the round there's nothing much to say, IMO - the caster spends segment-1 casting and then on segment 2 to 8 blinks out, re-appears elsewhere and the 2d4 process is repeated for the duration of the spell, potentially making an attack each round if they land within 1" of something worth attacking.

Negora wrote:

OK. So if the caster loses initiative he's better off losing it by a lot, right? In fact, generally speaking, this system makes spell casting a lot safer than I expected. If I'm casting a 2-segment spell, then the only way to prevent the casting is to kill me before it completes or strike on one of the two segments of casting. That is pretty generous and I wonder how wide-spread this ruling is even among d6+ DMs

Does the caster have their AC bonus in this case, then?

Those are good questions. Some have mentioned they don't like the rule (adding casting time to the d6 of opponent) because it makes it better for a spell caster to go later (or even intentionally hold the spell until after the 6th segment) if he won't loose the spell if hit. The answer to that is you can't do that. In truth everyone is holding their move until they can get in their death blow. That's already built into the system of a minute long combat. So the assumption is, no one is holding back because they know the other guy is going to hold back (say you had a spell caster waiting for the bowman to fire, but the bowman is holding off until the caster starts casting....it could go on forever if neither acted first). Someone has to give first.

The rule you mentioned could be read that any attack during the combat round before the spell is cast destroys the spell. However, it could be that the writer thought getting hit during casting (even for something that was a 3 segment spell 50% chance) was so risky that you'd grab your magic wand or whatever (remember during casting the MU AC will be a 10 unless he's got magical protection). Plus if you have magical devices (scrolls and wands etc.) your probably not first level (the higher level the caster, usually the longer the spells take to cast).

I can see your literal interpretation of "if your hit before you cast you loose the spell". I don't see the logic in it, so even if that was the correct BtB method for certain, I would ignore it.
If you read the Q&A it appears EGG did not have an MU loose his spell if hit before he starts casting it, and even gives the MU his Dex bonus when he is casting (as he can still move about enough while waving his arms). I personally do this as well ( because I think MUs have it hard enough already with their ACs).

A thought:

A fighter using a longsword (speed 5) is in melee range of a magic user (casting scare, 2-segs) and a cleric using a horseman's mace (speed 6). Fighter rolls 3, others roll 5. The DM rolls random hit allocation using d6+:

If the fighter attacks the cleric then, as I understand the system, on segment 3 the cleric attacks, and the MU starts casting, and on segment 5 the spell completes just as the fighter attacks (Polyhedron notwithstanding I'd call that simultaneous).
If the fighter attacks the magic user however, he attacks on segment 2 (as per p67), possibly killing the magic user either before he or the cleric can act.

Replace longsword with 2-hander:
Attack against the cleric remains the same: the cleric attacks on seg-3, MU completes on seg-5, and fighter attacks at the same time as the latter.
If the fighter attacks the magic user however, he attacks on segment 7, long after the others have completed.

That all seems very odd to me. In the first case it could be argued that the fighter would be able to attack the non-defending magic user more quickly than the cleric, but in the second version the attack on the cleric is faster. In any case, the cleric has initiative over the fighter, so the cleric should always act to protect the MU before the fighter can attack. Yet the spell Vs melee rule means that's not the case when applied here.

Maybe it's an inherent problem with that rule?

Let's look at what happens if all action starts at the start of the round then this is what I get with with longsword:
Fighter attacking cleric: Cleric attacks fighter, fighter's attack is on segment 2, simultaneous with magic user's spell, so the MU can't prevent the attack.
Fighter attacks the MU: Cleric attacks fighter, fighter's attack is on segment 2, simultaneous with magic user's spell, so the MU can't prevent the attack.

With the 2-hander:
Fighter attacking cleric: Cleric attacks fighter, magic-user completes spell on segment-2, fighter's attack is on segment 5.
Fighter attacks the MU: Cleric attacks fighter, magic-user completes spell on segment-2, fighter's attack is on segment 5.

So the second system is more consistent, which makes it easier to use, and importantly it never has the cleric attacking after the fighter when the cleric has initiative and shows that the original problem was not inherent in the rules as written.

Nagora wrote:We've had a question from a listener:

"How does the blink spell work with d6+?"

Happy to open that one to the floor, if there's any takers? Obviously, if spell-casting starts at the start of the round there's nothing much to say, IMO - the caster spends segment-1 casting and then on segment 2 to 8 blinks out, re-appears elsewhere and the 2d4 process is repeated for the duration of the spell, potentially making an attack each round if they land within 1" of something worth attacking.

I'd have the first blink occur 1d4 segments after the spell completes (like a second cantrip) and on segment 2d4 in rounds 2+, and mark the inconsistency down to the AD&D rules being developed over a period of several years by diverse contributors and editors (on the scale of internal contradictions, this is pretty small stuff).

To turn the question around, how do you determine whether attacks upon the blinking magic-user (melee, missile, or spell) occur before the segment when the blinking happens?

T. Foster wrote:

Nagora wrote:We've had a question from a listener:

"How does the blink spell work with d6+?"

Happy to open that one to the floor, if there's any takers? Obviously, if spell-casting starts at the start of the round there's nothing much to say, IMO - the caster spends segment-1 casting and then on segment 2 to 8 blinks out, re-appears elsewhere and the 2d4 process is repeated for the duration of the spell, potentially making an attack each round if they land within 1" of something worth attacking.

I'd have the first blink occur 1d4 segments after the spell completes (like a second cantrip) and on segment 2d4 in rounds 2+, and mark the inconsistency down to the AD&D rules being developed over a period of several years by diverse contributors and editors (on the scale of internal contradictions, this is pretty small stuff).

Sure, if it was a contradiction it would be a small thing.

To turn the question around, how do you determine whether attacks upon the blinking magic-user (melee, missile, or spell) occur before the segment when the blinking happens?

Attacks that have initiative come first; losing melee weapons on the segment given by p67, and other attacks on segments 1-6 based on result of the losing/non-winning die. Compare that to the 2d4 result. Simple enough, and no new rules invented to support this one case.

I can't review the text of the spell at the moment, but I've always treated the variable segments as only starting with the 2nd blink; the first occurring immediately upon casting completion

It seems logical to me that the variable only applies in the round(s) where the spell wasn't cast.

EOTB wrote:I can't review the text of the spell at the moment, but I've always treated the variable segments as only starting with the 2nd blink; the first occurring immediately upon casting completion

It seems logical to me that the variable only applies in the round(s) where the spell wasn't cast.

The spell description doesn't specify that the 2d4 timing is only for the 2nd+ rounds, but that's a reasonable reading (especially since it removes the weirdness of the spell going into effect and then nothing happening for several segments).

I'll confess that this is not a spell that I've seen get a lot of use at the table (I mean, over the decades it's probably shown up once or twice, but not that I can recall specifically, and not any time within the last 20 years or so), so my answer was an off-the-cuff "D&D Jeopardy" answer rather than something borne out of actual experience.

Yeah, it doesn’t say “the first one happens right after the spell is cast, just like every other spell”. But the more I write, the more I realize that writers don’t write for text parsers. At least, my mind doesn’t think “I need to tell them here to do what happens normally every other time they cast a spell”

I haven’t used it a ton, but especially for multis w/ a fighter component - they can cause some havoc with it.

Nagora wrote:

To turn the question around, how do you determine whether attacks upon the blinking magic-user (melee, missile, or spell) occur before the segment when the blinking happens?

Attacks that have initiative come first; losing melee weapons on the segment given by p67, and other attacks on segments 1-6 based on result of the losing/non-winning die. Compare that to the 2d4 result. Simple enough, and no new rules invented to support this one case.

If it's a spell attack upon the blinking character, do you do a straight comparison of casting time to blink-segment or do you also apply initiative as a consideration? And is a device with an activation time treated the same way (i.e. a wand of paralyzation counts the same as a 3-segment casting time spell)?

Have access to PHB

Nagora the following is from p 104 of PHB under initiative
"Actions affected by initiative are many and include ...beginning a spell, and so on."

This is clear concise and understandable. Why would Gygax write initiative affects the beginning of a spell? What does that sentence mean? I think anyone with a dictionary and with minimum reading comprehension the meaning is clear: initiative determines when spell casting begins.

This cannot be interpreted imo to mean that spell casting begins on the first segment of the round. To ignore this cite and the DMG is to want to not understand.

Nagora you also seem to think the btb roll initiative system means magic users have too much of an advantage compared to your all spells always start on segment one argument. I think in your sys where MUs always start casting on segment one gives them an incredible advantage. Your sys makes it a much easier for casters then the rules as actually written.

T. Foster wrote:

Nagora wrote:

To turn the question around, how do you determine whether attacks upon the blinking magic-user (melee, missile, or spell) occur before the segment when the blinking happens?

Attacks that have initiative come first; losing melee weapons on the segment given by p67, and other attacks on segments 1-6 based on result of the losing/non-winning die. Compare that to the 2d4 result. Simple enough, and no new rules invented to support this one case.

If it's a spell attack upon the blinking character, do you do a straight comparison of casting time to blink-segment or do you also apply initiative as a consideration?

Straight comparison. You'd need to get pretty lucky, or use an area effect.

And is a device with an activation time treated the same way (i.e. a wand of paralyzation counts the same as a 3-segment casting time spell)?

Anything with a specific, non-abstract, time is treated the same: spells, movement, devices, huge sandstone blocks sliding into corridors etc.

Ska wrote:Nagora the following is from p 104 of PHB under initiative
"Actions affected by initiative are many and include ...beginning a spell, and so on."

This is clear concise and understandable. Why would Gygax write initiative affects the beginning of a spell?

I've explained multiple times and shown several examples of how the beginning of a spell is affected by initiative and you just can't get your head around the idea that if two things take the same time and one finishes first then the other must have been delayed. Spells starting during the first segment have 6 seconds in which to begin. If you like we can say that the second of beginning is equal to the initiative die, if that would help?

DMG wrote:Note that even though a spell takes but 1 segment to complete, this is 6 seconds

I mean, the rules actually remind you that a segment is a relatively long time. Maybe you should read them one day?

Nagora you also seem to think the btb roll initiative system means magic users have too much of an advantage compared to your all spells always start on segment one argument. I think in your sys where MUs always start casting on segment one gives them an incredible advantage.

Which only shows that you've not bothered your arse to read what I've written but just go on with your cracked-record about crap which isn't in the text.

You can't quote a single example of spells being delayed by d6-1 segments anywhere.

You can't quote a single reference to successful attacks on spell casters not preventing them from casting that round.

You can't quote a single reference of how initiative is handled on spill over.

You certainly can't show anywhere in the book that even hints at the idea that a 7-segment spell will usually occupy a caster for two full rounds, which is such obvious bollocks that I can only assume you've never tried telling a player that, or just don't have clerics in your game.

You can't explain why the rules specifically (p67) say that a longsword weapon that strikes on segment 3 is known to be striking at simultaneously with a 3-segment spell without any need to look at the caster's initiative.

You can't explain why the rules specifically (p67) say that a dagger will strike simultaneously with a 3-seg spell when the attacker rolls 5 and the caster a 6 for initiative.

You can't explain why the rules specifically (p67) say that a two-handed sword that loses initiative can not possibly strike before a 3-segment spell is complete, despite the fact that you claim that the spell might not complete before segment 7 (maybe 8, your houserules aren't very clear). Or are you going to pull another rule out of your ass that says that weapon blows can spill over too?

You can't explain why a cleric without initiative can attack a fighter with initiative before that fighter can act.

It's not come up but I suspect you can't explain how a crossbow could ever interrupt a 1-segment spell (you know, in this really tough-on-spellcasters system you've invented).

Your sys makes it a much easier for casters then the rules as actually written.

You are a lazy idiot who can't count, then, and I've wasted my time trying to explain the rules to you. Goodbye.

T. Foster wrote:The spell description doesn't specify that the 2d4 timing is only for the 2nd+ rounds, but that's a reasonable reading

I'd be surprised if you showed that text to anyone for the first time and that's what they took away. The eye of faith is at work here, methinks.

(especially since it removes the weirdness of the spell going into effect and then nothing happening for several segments).

Well, the same weirdness is seen in subsequent rounds where the caster doesn't know when the next blink is, so that doesn't sound like much of an objection. Weird spell is weird.

Nagora myself and others have listed location of text which uphold that generally initiative determines when casting begins. You have chosen to ignore them as you did with my last reference to the PHB. PHB page 104 under spell combat notes some spells will be finished after the first round. Your "can't quote" list have all been answered with references to the rule books multiple times.

I might have misunderstood but I thought you wrote we could agree casting starts on the initiative dice. If by that you mean casting starts on the casters initiative then we are in agreement.

Take a look at combat ex in PHB 105. Twice we see initiative rolled prior to spell casting beginning.

You listed some weapons speed examples involving combat. I have never used weapon speed in play and consider them optional as I do the weapons AC +\_ chart. Interestingly the DMG states "if" you use the weapon AC chart. I am not sure if such language exist for using weapon speeds but I have considered them optional.

I have DMed a few games where longer casting time spells have gone over into the next round. Most casters avoid this for fear of spell disruption but the casting time segments and initiative rolls make it very easy to calculate. The PHB page 104 mentions sowne spells will take more than a round to complete.

Since I do not use weapon speeds the cleric who loses initiative to a fighter will be attacked by the fighter before the cleric can act.
Crossbow interrupting a one segment spell would be very difficult and would require a tie initiative roll where the crossbow is fired and the spell completed. DM could decide an actual tie or decide to use his leeway and come up with a tiebreaker. I would rule it simultaneous actions.
I cannot claim to have invented this system as it is contained in the AD&D rule books. This system is tougher on spell casters then your no reason to roll initiative because casters always begin on segment one system which is found nowhere in the rule books.

nagora wrote:I'd be surprised if you showed that text to anyone for the first time and that's what they took away. The eye of faith is at work here, methinks.

Agreed, weird spell is weird either way. But is it as weird as thinking that if both of us acknowledge that d6+ was intended as of '82, that an entirely different system was in place in '79?

@Ratbreath: I said I'd come back to the "or" so here it is.

This is pretty speculative but it's based on an observation about the RAW, which is that initiative scores that are considered in the text always run from 1 to 6 even though we know that for human characters the range is from -2 to +9, due to DEX mods.

As things stand everyone assumes that attacks on a spellcaster (or mover etc) come on the segment indicated by their own die. Even I think that, albeit in the limited case of attacks by opponents who did not win initiative and are not using weapon speeds (missile weapons, claws, bites and so on).

However, the rules seem to me to be concerned with making initiative easy on the DM and so group rolls are the norm, except in the case of missile fire (and surprise, but that's a different kettle of worms).

My answer can be illustrated as follows:

Side A consists of a magic user and some others. Let's say the MU has protection from normal missiles up. Side B consists of some hostile dwarves, including a cleric armed with a +2 hammer and a DEX of 3; the rest have crossbows; range is 3". The dwarves will use their weapons, side A will set weapons against charge, the MU will cast web (2-seg).

A rolls 1, B rolls 2. So the dwarves have initiative except the cleric who's modified score of -2 is less than A's score. Importantly, I think the DM need only remember that it was lower and can instantly forget the specific number.

The DM quickly resolves the dwarf minions attacks on the MU, since they simply bounce off the spell.

Next, the DM resolves any missile fire by A and considers the web. The Good Book says "all such attacks will occur on the 1st-6th segments of the round", and in any case segment -2 makes no sense. What does the DM do?

I think the DM uses the scores showing on the original initiative dice, using the one that gives the figure with initiative (i.e., the MU) the most favour. In this case, that is the die of the opponent, not the magic user. Thus, in this case, the attack comes on segment 2, simultaneous with the spell completion.

---

Now, although negative initiative mods are only a thing for clerics in the ranks of classed characters, there's no reason to not apply them to 0-level NPCs or creatures such as hill giants or ogres chucking spears at people. However, it's by no means a common occurrence. Not that I think using the other die should be a common occurrence.

It is pretty weak, but perhaps Gygax imagined that he would be using initiative modifiers in the future, which he only actually did IIRC with a few monsters in MMII (Atomies, Giant Dragonflies, giant electric eels (obviously), a massive +3 for phoenixes, and the strange use of a d8 for spectators). All of which is 1983, a point at which he may not have even been pretending to use the DMG system.

EOTB wrote:

nagora wrote:I'd be surprised if you showed that text to anyone for the first time and that's what they took away. The eye of faith is at work here, methinks.

Agreed, weird spell is weird either way. But is it as weird as thinking that if both of us acknowledge that d6+ was intended as of '82, that an entirely different system was in place in '79?

I'm not convinced that d6+ was in place in '82. The cantrip reference isn't completely conclusive. In any case it's clear that it doesn't fit with either the PHB or DMG as printed.

Edit (at Axe's request): As Ska insists on mischaracterising what has been said and instantly rejects anything that doesn't fit his pre-conceived notion of how the rules should be interpreted as "not BtB" and therefore some form of heresy, I respectfully decline to make any further attempts to engage him on this or any other subject.

Negora, you may want to try decaf.