Initiative & Spellcasting

[Ska]

Nagora want to make sure any reader does not take your last post as meaning I wrote " lies and bullshit" unfortunately those were your words.
Clearly you are not mature enough to handle opposing views or when error in your arguments are pointed out.

[Ska]

I would rule the MU spell will go off on segment one of the next round.
Initiative would still be rolled as the surprise segments are over assuming there are other members in the MU party..
If the MU side wins with the opposing side rolling a one it is possible the MU could be hit as his spell goes off.

If an enemy archer with a knocked arrow is attacking on segment one due to the initiative roll and has high dex a DM could choose to have the spell and attack occur at same time or break the tie using dex or some other method.

[Kellri]

Negora, you may want to try decaf.

You might also want to put some of that tl;dr earnestness into a reflection on how such a statement would be received on another board, like say, Dragonsfoot. Perhaps you mistook our slightly more freewheeling approach here to be an open invitation to be a dick? I can assure you, that is neither a valid assumption or a good plan for remaining a member in good standing.

[EOTB]

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.

But other people aren't invested in their own creation when considering initiative. It isn't a matter of convincing you, per se. It's to hash it out so that lurkers can make up their own minds.

I'm confident that most people will be more generous than yourself with the various bits of "evidence".

[Nagora]

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.

But other people aren't invested in their own creation when considering initiative. It isn't a matter of convincing you, per se. It's to hash it out so that lurkers can make up their own minds.

I'm all for hashing out. Outright lying about what has been said earlier in the thread isn't one of the acceptable options, IMO. For that matter, I'm not the one obsessed with proving that my interpretation is the One True Way and all else must be banned from BtB threads.

Anyway, the cantrip d4 is certainly suggestive but in any case the entire idea of casting twice in one round is definitely a bolt-on of some sort to the system whether it is or isn't a completely new system.

[AxeMental]

Negora, did SKA actually write this

More lies and bullshit

If not, perhaps you should remove that bit from the post you made (those skimming might get the impression he did type those words), as it says "SKA wrote". Thanks.

It may be what you think SKA is thinking and insinuating, but that is not one in the same.

[TRP]

Maybe the discussion has run its course. EOTB is right about lurkers drawing their own conclusions, and I think there's more than enough to digest already.

[EOTB]

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.

But other people aren't invested in their own creation when considering initiative. It isn't a matter of convincing you, per se. It's to hash it out so that lurkers can make up their own minds.

I'm all for hashing out. Outright lying about what has been said earlier in the thread isn't one of the acceptable options, IMO. For that matter, I'm not the one obsessed with proving that my interpretation is the One True Way and all else must be banned from BtB threads.

Anyway, the cantrip d4 is certainly suggestive but in any case the entire idea of casting twice in one round is definitely a bolt-on of some sort to the system whether it is or isn't a completely new system.

The cantrip d4 isn't the point. Trying to draw attention to that is to lead the eye away from the point that initiative is one of the "usual factors"

But I agree with TRP. There's nothing more to discuss, at least for me. I'm satisfied with how both sides have been presented

[Ska]

Just noticed the archer with 18 dex. As PJ noted surprise is negated and the MU is committed to casting fireball into segment one of the combat round.
As he is not surprised the question is can the archer act within the 3 segments of casting including segment 1 of the upcoming combat round.
I think the DM options at this point would be: (assuming other members are with the MU and the archer groups)

1. PJ's answer with both acting at start of surprise segments.
2. compare dex with high dex winning.
3. Roll dice witch will in a way represent a sub-combat situation between the MU and the unsurprised archer. The high roll wins, which simply represents completion of the spell first or the firing of an arrow first. A tie represents simultaneous action.

If there is just an archer and a magic-user then no surprise occurred with the 18 dexterity archer. Normal initiative is rolled.

[EOTB]

Not saying the following is explicitly drawn from some text; but I would allow the archer to shoot if out of the 10' melee envelope.

If within 10'; I.e., he is not surprised and he is being melee-targeted by the other side, I would rule no actions for either archer or attackers - they rush forward to attack, see he isn't surprised, and that mini-group of combatants circle and feint the surprise segments away

Roll init for Rd 1

[Nagora]

If not, perhaps you should remove that bit from the post you made (those skimming might get the impression he did type those words), as it says "SKA wrote". Thanks.

It may be what you think SKA is thinking and insinuating, but that is not one in the same.

I have edited that part of the post.

The cantrip d4 isn't the point. Trying to draw attention to that is to lead the eye away from the point that initiative is one of the "usual factors"

Yes, you're right. I forgot that bit.

But I agree with TRP. There's nothing more to discuss, at least for me. I'm satisfied with how both sides have been presented

Likewise.

[Ska]

Not saying the following is explicitly drawn from some text; but I would allow the archer to shoot if out of the 10' melee envelope.

If within 10'; I.e., he is not surprised and he is being melee-targeted by the other side, I would rule no actions for either archer or attackers - they rush forward to attack, see he isn't surprised, and that mini-group of combatants circle and feint the surprise segments away

Roll init for Rd 1

Good point concerning if within 10'.

[genghisdon]

I was wondering how on earth the most obvious (& immediately answered by Ratbreath) question could generate more than one page...initiative, of course.

Not having posted here in ages, I really ought not bother commenting, but
a) anyone not knowing as a matter of fact that "declarations of actions is prior to initiative rolls in 1e" is pretty much not to be worried about regarding rule queries about said edition. sorry.
b) Gary said "yeah, that's the way" about several ways to do initiative, not least having some of them in print in D&D rulebooks.
c) In respect to Gary, can we do the decent thing & ignore & forget the dumpster fire bad notion of CT starting on the die, wrapping around into other rounds, and all that unplayable garbage? If one really wants to pay lip service to that notion, take the 2e PH optional initiative system instead, as it at least, works. Or take another D&D edition (B/X, BECMI, 3e, 3.5e, 4e, 5e) is initiative rules, & hey, you can drop the "declaration" as well!
d) I'm not digging through it all to be careful, but Nagora seems to have pointed out the system that actually works (yes, more than one is mentioned, or it's all gibberish, take your pick) . It works very well, I'd add, and moreover, it's not that difficult to get...I managed to get numerous & various drunk &/or stoned teenagers in the 80's to understand it completely. Often while being drunk &/or stoned myself.

Hmm, I haven't posted a salty comment about D&D in a year or more, I think. Sorry it was now, the first time I visit K&K in some time. It wasn't my intent, I didn't even want to click on the topic, but how on earth this could go multiple pages was too great a mystery to ignore...Then, seeing what it is, & comments akin to "But other people aren't invested in their own creation when considering initiative. It isn't a matter of convincing you, per se. It's to hash it out so that lurkers can make up their own minds. " force my hand. Anyone that wants to actually play 1e need to not be poisoned by the absurd "Gygax said it online" version (despite the fact, yes, he did say that, sadly).

(at a glance) Use Nags "interpretation". Otherwise, play a different game (and that would be sad, as 1e is awesome if one does not slice their own game's throat)

casting time is immediate (1 seg is seg 1, 5 seg is seg 5, unless they dither or have no material components to hand), attacks land on the opponent's init die # segment, and then it gets a bit more complicated, sometimes.

[EOTB]

Thanks for letting us know you have low impulse control. We'll try to keep that in mind.

[Gentlegamer]