Quote from: Omega;969570Added note: In BX there was no spell interruption except to win initiative and kill the caster.

I thought if you won init you always attacked while they were casting, & any hit disrupted? Since they start casting before init is rolled at top of round. Caster also can't move in a round they cast.

The way I actually run BX/RC is cyclic init so I give a free attack vs a caster who starts casting while adjacent to you, hit disrupts . This means casters are fairly safe as long as no one gets into melee with them, dead meat thereafter. They can't move and cast, they can't use most spells while on a moving mount (inc fliers). Tough game compared to 3e/4e/5e, always impressed how well my son handled it playing an MU at age 6-9.

Quote from: S'mon;969574I thought if you won init you always attacked while they were casting, & any hit disrupted? Since they start casting before init is rolled at top of round. Caster also can't move in a round they cast.

oops. You are correct. In X it states that if a caster is hit on the round they cast by someone with better initiative then the casting is interrupted. That isnt in B as far as I can tell. My fault for not checking X too. I thought for sure it was in BX but was perplexed that B didnt have the rule.

So yes. You can wack the caster and stop ANY spell if you are faster in BX.

This or AD&Ds slightly more detailed system could be ported over to 5e.

Make spell casting need to be announced before initiative.
If hit before can cast then check for interrupt.

Quote from: Omega;969570Going back over spellcasting in AD&D its notable that its actually rather hard to disrupt a spell.

I don't know that I can agree with that. There's a line in the book that makes clear the intent, "Because spell casting will be so difficult, most magic-users and clerics will opt to use magical devices whenever possible in melee." If you're thinking spell disruption is hard, you might be misinterpreting the rules. I'll get into the weeds of it a bit.

QuoteThis was due to the initiative system which was per side, not per individual.

This is not a strict rule. As I often say, the term "group initiative" does not come with a dictate as two what constitutes a group. A PC party of just three characters could be three groups of 1. The DMG specifically mentions allowing initiative for each individual when the groups are small. And when groups are very large, I also often break things down into sub-groups (for example, a PC party with a bunch of NPC retainers I might have one initiative roll for the PCs, a separate for friendly NPCs, and then one or possibly more for the enemies).

QuoteThe twist was that casters had to declare their spells before round initiative was rolled. The only way to disrupt a spell was if you got your initiative within the casting window. The example given was the caster is going on initiative 5. So any attempts to disrupt have to come on segments 5+.

So Im casting Fireball. Our side rolls init 4 their side rolls initiative 2. I start casting on 4 and wont finish till 2. So the enemy might be able to disrupt casting just as Im about to launch. Something like Reverse Gravity that tales 7 segments wouldn't finish till next round on initiative 7.

The way it works is, in the case of simultaneous action (tied initiative), the attacker always gets an opportunity to disrupt the spell. If the attacker loses initiative, the losing initiative die is subtracted from weapon speed, counting negatives as positives, and that is compared to casting time. So if the losing initiative is 2, any weapon with a speed of 5 or less gets a chance to disrupt a fireball. If initiative is won, presumably the attacker can delay his attack if he suspects the mage is going to cast a spell. Failing that, I think there are a couple different interpretations for a winning initiative--subtract losing initiative same as lost initiative, or subtract difference between winning and losing initiative to compare with casting time. In any case, all in all, there is generally plenty of opportunity to try and disrupt spells. Less so for quicker spells like Sleep. Also, this is in terms of relative timing between attacker and caster. In terms of absolute timing and position in the round sequence, the attacker always uses either his own group's initiative or that of the caster, whichever is better, and the attack always falls between segments 1 and 6. Meaning anything with a casting time 6 segments or more can definitely be disrupted.

Gary was a great lover of chess. It's a chess-like game of positioning to protect your mage, or to get to your enemy's spellcaster.

AD&D also has stipulations in the case of lost or tied initiative.

In the case of tied initiative, there's opportunity to disrupt even a one-segment spell since an attack with a weapon is certainly quicker than 6 seconds. I suppose I'd let less-than-one-segment spells slide (Feather Fall is one-tenth of a segment--it wouldn't be very useful otherwise!).

In the case of lost initiative, the losing initiative die is subtracted from the attacker's weapon speed (negatives counted as positives), and if this is less than or equal to the casting time, then there is the opportunity to disrupt the spell. As an aside, it might be interesting to note that a dagger will be able to interrupt a 1 segment spell if the losing initiative is 1, 2, or 3, but not 4 or 5. A longsword will be able to interrupt a 1 segment spell if the losing initiative is 4 or 5 but not 1, 2, or 3. So if a fighter dual wields longsword and dagger, he can interrupt any spell in any circumstance (except maybe Feather Fall).

All in all, if you're within striking distance and can make your hit roll, it's pretty easy to disrupt spells in AD&D.

Is that AD&D or 2e because I am not seeing that in the AD&D DMG section on combat and spell interruption? (I assume its buried in there under weapon speeds somewhere?) The rule just says you have to beat the casters initiative or act before they finish casting if after.

1st Ed DMG pg 66-67

QuoteOther Weapon Factor Determinants: The speed factor of a weapon also determines when the weapon strikes during the course of the round with respect to opponents who are engaged in activity other than striking blows. Thus, suppose side A, which has achieved initiative (action) for the round, has a magic-user engaged in casting a spell. Compare the speed factor of the weapon with the number of segments which the spell will require to cast to determine if the spell or the weapon will be cast/strike first, subtracting the losing die roll on the initiative die roll from the weapon factor and treating negative results as positive. Example: A sword with a factor of 5 (broad or long) is being used by an opponent of a magic-user attempting to cast a fireball spell (3 segment casting time). If the sword-wielding attacker was represented by a losing initiative die roll of 1, the spell will be cast prior to the sword's blow. A 2 will indicate that the spell and the blow are completed simultaneously. A 3-5 will indicate that the blow has a chance of striking (if a successful "to hit" roll is made) before the spell is cast, arriving either as the spell is begun or during the first segment of its casting. Suppose instead that a dagger were being employed. 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. If the weapon being employed was a two-handed sword (or any other weapon with a speed factor of 10, or 9 for that matter) there would be no chance for the reacting side to strike the spell caster prior to completion of the fireball. 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! If combat is simultaneous, there is no modification of the weapon speed factor.

Perhaps also noteworthy, from DMG pg 65:

Quote2. 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.

To me, the implication here is that any spell with casting time 6 segments or more is always subject to interrupt, regardless of initiative.

Also, Silence 15' Radius is a 5 segment casting, giving a sure-fire way to block most spells above the 5th level.

In practicality, disruption in 1E is very easy as I interpret the initiative rules.

If the M-U is trying to cast in a mass melee (i.e., the M-U is not very smart), any attack made may randomly target them.

Quote from: DMG pg 70As with missile fire, it is generally not possible to select a specific opponent in a mass melee. If this is the case, simply use some random number generation to find out which attacks are upon which opponents

If the M-U is apart from melee they can be specifically targeted by missiles.  Many M-Us don't bother to learn the 3rd level protection from missiles spell because they want flashier attack options

If the M-U is closed with, then all sorts of the bits and bobs of AD&D start to work against them.  What I'm writing below is based on adding the segments of casting time to their segment of initiative (I.e., the number on the initiative die rolled by their opponent).  

1) If you have multiple attacks by level, or by specialization (if used) then you get your first attack before anyone else gets to do anything.  This means a higher-level or specialized opponent automatically has a state of winning initiative on any round with multiple attacks.  Note that in 1E the round of multiple attacks starts with the first round (i.e., 3/2 attacks means you get two attacks on round 1 and every odd round after, not round 2 and every even round thereafter)

2) As noted, attacks will always come on segments 1-6, but casting completes anytime from segment 1 (if a one segment spell cast by a M-U whose opponent rolled a "1" for initiative), into the next round (say the caster starting casting on segment 4 and was casting a higher level spell with a casting time of 8 segments - they start at the beginning of segment 4 so complete at the very end of segment 1 of the next round).

3) If the players act on a segment before the M-U finishes casting the spell they can automatically attempt to disrupt.  While it's technically true that the attack has to come during the casting, for practical purposes the attack almost always will.  One of the options available to the initiative winner is to delay their action.  This is probably the most overlooked aspect of AD&D combat.  So if I know that a M-U isn't pointing a wand at me but is instead trying to fish out material components from their pockets, or at least doesn't seem to be doing anything else, I'm likely going to hold my attack until I see him start dancing the funky chicken or speaking gibberish at me.  Sometimes I might want to take my attack before then, but that's the option available to the initiative winner.  The attacker can opt to take his attack at the first instant the M-U starts casting, before it's possible to complete the spell (provided the attacker won initiative, of course!)

4) Single class magic-users can't use armor, so they are always AC type 10 regardless of whether dexterity, shield, or magic item gives them a lower adjusted armor class.  If you look on the WvAC mods, almost every weapon commonly used by players has a bonus to hit AC type 10.  Most of the medium hand-to-hand weapons like the common swords and battle ax are +2; the dagger is +3.  (And a thief backstabbing a low hit point M-U can easily kill).

5) As mentioned, even if initiative is lost the weapon speed of the attacker may result in an attack during casting.  Smart tactical play is to switch to daggers or other small, fast weapons when attacking magic-users.

6) Even more smart tactical play is to switch to your fists and pummel the magic user, or wrestle/overbear them.  Unlike attacking with weapons, success using non-lethal combat is not primarily based on the attackers level (because the chance "to hit" starts out extremely high), but instead on the various characteristics of the opponent which may reduce the high chance to hit.  A M-U has almost none of the characteristics which would reduce the very good odds of being smacked around.

Quote from: DMG pg 72It is not uncommon for players to be weaponless at some stage of a game - or for better players to wish to attack on opponent bare-handed in order to most effectively neutralize that opponent’s potential

A M-U can't cast if they don't have freedom of movement or get cold-clocked during the process.  To select (of the three modes) pummeling for use in an example:

Quote from: DMG pg 72The base score [to successfully pummel] on percentile dice is opponent AC value times 10 to arrive at a percentage chance to hit, i.e. AC 10 = 100%.

...

Magical protections such as rings, bracers, cloaks, etc. do not count as AC, so ignore them; encumbrance = AC 10.

A M-U can't use dexterity while casting, and magical items/spells reducing AC (shield, armor, etc.) don't protect against pummeling.  So if someone can close with an unguarded M-U they effectively can almost always disrupt their spells.  They would be smart to do so until a 2nd person can join and attack the M-U to kill instead of disrupt.  Consider also that after starting a successful pummeling routine, (and attackers of any level get 2 attack routines during a round) when rolling the result, many of the results allow you to roll again; i.e., each successful pummel attack can score multiple hits depending upon the effect rolled - and you get two chances to start the "punch them into unconsciousness" cascade.

All these things together are why

Quote from: DMG pg 65It can thus be understood that spell casting during a melee can be a tricky business, for a mere shove at any time can spoil the dweomer! Any spell can be attempted, but success is likely to be uncertain.
...

Because spell casting will be so difficult, most magic-users and clerics will opt to use magical devices whenever possible in melee, if they are wise.

One unfortunate aspect of streamlining play or ignoring all these tactical complexities is that the extreme vulnerability of casting M-Us built into the early AD&D systems is stripped out, and thus you get the problem of M-Us dominating play with their flashy damage and reality warping combat spells instead of being forced to concentrate on using wands and other magical items in combat.   Taken all together, a smart M-U should be prioritizing memorized spells for non-combat protective and utilitarian purposes.  In the context of the whole system, the high variety of protective spells (like blink) makes even more sense.  Yes, the high level wizard will probably have some lightning bolts (or whatever) memorized which allow them to roll lots of damage dice based on level, but unless in a very favorable combat situation they're probably going to be using a 6d6 damage wand of lightning instead.  

Also, if a player can roll up a monk and the party is willing to run interference so the monk can dedicate themselves to a specialized role of closing with and killing M-Us in combat, the higher movement, saving throw bonuses, and open hand stunning abilities (fists are +4 to hit AC type 10) of the monk are like kryptonite to magic-users.  If the monk stuns them for 1d6 segments, they can switch to pummeling them into unconsciousness.  It's quite possible to get in, kill a M-U in a round or two, and get back out with a high move rate.  They may take damage doing it and need to spend a few rounds sucking down potions of healing to rejoin the fight, but its a good tactical trade - like a knight taking out a queen.

In this set of combat rules the tactics of both protecting your own M-U and closing with the enemy M-U take on a different level of importance.   Advanced D&D is "advanced" in the same way Advanced Squad Leader is different than Squad Leader.  All that extra stuff does actually serve a purpose.  Not wanting to bother learning it or using it is, of course, a game choice.  But I think it makes for a rich gaming experience, one where randomness and chance play a roll but not such a large one, and there are more counters to the M-Us ability to dominate the game.

Quote from: EOTB;969622One unfortunate aspect of streamlining play or ignoring all these tactical complexities is that the extreme vulnerability of casting M-Us built into the early AD&D systems is stripped out, and thus you get the problem of M-Us dominating play with their flashy damage and reality warping combat spells instead of being forced to concentrate on using wands and other magical items in combat.

I've managed to simplify things while keeping spellcasters vulnerable. I recognize the simple fact that weapon speeds and initiative numbers have no units. Casting times have units (segments). Movement rates have units (scale inches per round). Rates of Fire have units (shots per round). So I only concern myself with syncing up measures with units. I assume numbers without units are abstractions. Does the fighter have a chance at disrupting the mage's spell? That's answered simply enough by whether or not he can get within striking distance prior to the completion of the spell. How about with a missile weapon? Well, based on Rate of Fire, figure which segments those shots go off and your answer is ready made. Unless I have reason to believe otherwise, I assume a bow with a rate of fire of 2 goes off at segments 3 and 8 each round--so a mage can get away with casting times 1 or 2.

Be it ranged or striking attack, if the attack goes off in the same segment that the spell completes, I consider this a tie. Only then do I go and look at which side won initiative to break that tie. So a bow going off on segment 3 versus a protection from normal missiles completing on segment 3 could go either way depending on the toss of the initiative dice, the winner negating the loser. In the event that even the initiative itself is tied, then the completion of the spell is simultaneous with the arrow strike. The mage is protected from normal missiles, except for that one which barely snuck in.

QuoteAlso, if a player can roll up a monk and the party is willing to run interference so the monk can dedicate themselves to a specialized role of closing with and killing M-Us in combat, the higher movement, saving throw bonuses, and open hand stunning abilities (fists are +4 to hit AC type 10) of the monk are like kryptonite to magic-users.  If the monk stuns them for 1d6 segments, they can switch to pummeling them into unconsciousness.  It's quite possible to get in, kill a M-U in a round or two, and get back out with a high move rate.  They may take damage doing it and need to spend a few rounds sucking down potions of healing to rejoin the fight, but its a good tactical trade - like a knight taking out a queen.

The chess analogy is absolutely on point. Gary was a huge chess nut (and had a love of puns), and I believe he did envision protecting the mage to be all about positioning like a game of chess.

I can't recall, is Weapon Speed presented as an optional system or did most of us (including apparently Gygax himself) just not use it? B/X's if you're hit by someone with better iniative it disrupts the spells seems like a better solutio, what is the advantage of the segments approach in AD&D?

Quote from: Voros;969687I can't recall, is Weapon Speed presented as an optional system or did most of us (including apparentlynGygax himself) just not use it? B/X's if you're hit by someone with better iniative it disrupts the spells seems like a better solutio, what is the advantage of the segments approach in AD&D?

I used it.

That's nice, I asked if it was presented as optional or not. I can go dig up my copy of the 1e DMG if need be.

Quote from: Voros;969687I can't recall, is Weapon Speed presented as an optional system or did most of us (including apparentlynGygax himself) just not use it? B/X's if you're hit by someone with better iniative it disrupts the spells seems like a better solutio, what is the advantage of the segments approach in AD&D?

Apart from attacking someone casting a spell? It's only used on tied initiative. So the rules presented do use weapon speed but only once in a while. It's not used in general, and not used as a modifier to initiative. The way it's presented in writing makes it seem more complex than it really is. In reality, the BtB initiative system for AD&D 1st Ed is actually one of the simpler systems around and can be summed up quite succinctly:
-Each group rolls d6.
-Highest goes first.
-Some exceptions apply.

The rules enumerate very few of these exceptions:
1. Attacking someone engaged in activity other than striking blows,
2. Tied initiative (determined by weapon speed),
3. Charge attack (determined by weapon length),
4. Multiple attacks (staggered throughout the round).

And that's it. You can forget the 20-something page document floating around out there. This is 100% BtB, and I feel it's actually closer to the spirit of the rules as well. And you can fit it easily on an index card.

Speed Factor is also used to determine how many times someone can attack when theres a big difference in speed.

Keep in mind that in AD&D when you have multiple attacks only the first might occur on your initiative. The rest may be staggered over the round. Speed factor can shift that.

Also really unwieldy weapons were so slow that you might not get to act next round due to the recovery time.

But overall speed factor of a weapon can shift your attack window just enough to clip a caster in the process.

As was noted in one of the examples above The attacker has a long or broad sword with a speed of 5. The MU has the winning initiative and is casting Fireball with a speed of 3. The window of interrupt is on rounds 3-5. Whereas a Dagger with a speed of 2 can interrupt in a window of 1-4.

What this also shows is that you cant interrupt a spell on that final segment. The window is the casters initiative when they start revving up. Then the next two rounds they are wiggling their fingers ominously. And the spell will launch on the next. So you have an initiative of 6. The 3 segment spell will launch on initiative 3.

This is where choice of weapon can be important. More damage may mean you are slower, possibly prohibitively slower.

Personally I think its a little more convoluted that it needs to be. Or at least explained a little more convoluted than it needs to be. Then theres the matter of  what happens when you get things with speeds or segments over 6?

Quote from: Omega;969438Segment is a 10th of a round. 10 segments in a round.

In 2e they kept segments as an optional. It added to the wizards initiative roll so they acted later in the round. Initiative was a d10. I'll have to look up what it is in AD&D.

2e Sleep is much the same as 1e. Casting time 1. That is +1 on the casters initiative. No save. But now it only drops 2d4 HD worth of monsters and doesnt effect any over 4+3. Effecting the lowest HD first. Way down from the AD&D version which can take down upwards of 7d4 individuals. Looks like you could no longer insta-kill them while sleeping though.

Ah, thanks again. I probably never used segments when I played 2e as a kid/teen.

Quote from: Lunamancer;969514This is neither here nor there, but you do seem laden with a lot of assumptions borne out of newer D&D that do not apply to old D&D. Pre 3E, we generally roll initiative not at the start of combat but each round. And it's not even necessarily at the beginning of the round. The rules call first for declaration of intent and pre-initiative actions before initiative is rolled (my own house rules due away with pre-declaration of intent entirely, but a lot more happens as pre-initiative actions).

My bad, I had forgotten about rolling initiative at the start of each round.

Quote from: Lunamancer;969514It seems like you're assuming the mage getting the spell off is a sure thing.

No, I'm pointing out that there's a difference between the sudden jeopardy nature of save-or-lose effects and and the otherwise back-and-forth nature of D&D combat, and that some of us don't like the the former. Sure, all kinds of things happen before a save-or-lose goes off; targets may have the opportunity to interrupt it, initiative is rolled, the PCs decide to pursue an adventure which may include save-or-lose effects, PCs are created, the group agrees to play edition X of D&D, etc.. Everything mentioned in this thread either 1) changes nothing fundamental about the problem, or 2) introduces new problems.

Quote from: Lunamancer;969514In case you weren't aware, popular sentiment is that 4E is a mighty fine RPG and it would have been well received if it was called anything but D&D because it's just too much of a departure from D&D to be called D&D. The people who are saying that aren't trashing the system, and they certainly aren't edition warring. Saying "Well I like 4E just fine" in response to "Maybe D&D isn't the game for you" just lends more credibility to the idea that 4E really just isn't D&D.

In case you weren't aware, this apologism is a naive sentiment that completely ignores the attention which the D&D logo brings to an edition, and if we cared about popular sentiment a good many of us wouldn't be playing D&D to begin with. In other words, a 4e published under a different logo would have pandered well to those D&D fans with a bug up their asses about it, but lacking the D&D logo would have brought it to the attention of that many fewer fans.

You say that D&D is just a fucking game, and it is, so I'm done with this nonsense. You publicly wondered why some of us have a preference, I explained why, you proceeded to tell me that I don't really understand what we have a problem with and to nitpick my choice of words, and now you're hung up on game titles. So I'm out, enjoy that bug up your ass.