Quote from: Omega;969812Speed Factor is also used to determine how many times someone can attack when theres a big difference in speed.

This is "When weapon speed factor is the determinant of which opponent strikes first in a melee round," not in general. The rules enumerate two cases where weapon speed factor is the determinant--tied initiative, and after a line of longer weapon users has already had their first strike.

QuoteKeep 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.

If you have more than one attack, your first attack is automatically first (except, perhaps, with regards to an opponent who has just as many or more attacks).

QuoteAlso 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?

I really don't see anything in the rules that supports this. I believe this is a misinterpretation that comes from assuming weapon speed and the initiative die syncs with segments. They lack units and as such are abstract numbers. For example, the rule on attacking a spell caster when it is tied initiative. The attacker has the opportunity to interrupt even a 1 segment spell because no melee weapon requires 6 seconds to strike a blow on someone who is not engaged in attacking or blocking.

Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;969839No, 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,

Let me see if I got this right. You assert (without evidence) that the nature of D&D is back-and-forth, then reject all examples of it not being back-and-forth as being broken on the basis that they don't fit the back-and-forth nature of the game? Seems like a circular argument. Wouldn't it be more honest to just say you only like to play something you perceive as having a back-and-forth dynamic? Wouldn't it be more prudent just to bring that with you to the table and play the game in that way rather than insist it be hard-coded into the game to the exclusion of all other play styles?

QuoteEverything mentioned in this thread either 1) changes nothing fundamental about the problem, or 2) introduces new problems.

Or so you assert without evidence. Meanwhile, I think it's been clearly established by myself and others that the ability of PCs having fair chances at avoiding save-or-die effects is dependent upon a play style decision regarding how easy or hard spell disruption is. Downplay spell disruption, and mages become very powerful at high levels.

It's also been clearly established that if a character dies this doesn't have to end player participation. Having NPC retainers on hand as a standard thing that provide ready made characters for the player to jump into and continue participation is a play style decision. Allowing players to temporarily play NPCs is another possible play style decision. Other play styles have new PCs appearing conveniently just around the next corner. Any of these allow the player to continue participating even after the character dies, no matter how few dice rolls are involved. Whereas a play style decision that insists players can only play their own PCs leave players with nothing to do when their characters die, even if they die approved "back-and-forth" deaths.

Hence the gripe of being knocked out of a game or an encounter "due to a single die roll" just doesn't track. The culprit that makes players sit out is one's own play style. Not game mechanics.

QuoteIn 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.

Sounds like you're saying it's okay to dangle something out there that a lot of people like, like D&D, only to actually deliver something that, as you say, a lot of these people have "a bug up their asses about," and that's justified to move copies of game that otherwise wouldn't have sold very well. Something about this strikes me as inherently dishonest. I can see why many people who genuinely love 4E may feel strongly that it shouldn't have been published under the D&D name.

QuoteYou say that D&D is just a fucking game, and it is, so I'm done with this nonsense.

LOL. It seems like you were done like 3 posts.

QuoteYou publicly wondered why some of us have a preference,

Not really. I already knew some people don't like save or die effects. But I also knew that some people do like having them in the game. So that alone is enough to find the treatment of "save-or-die" as a de facto problem objectionable. What was puzzling to me is why this objectionable mindset appeared in this thread since regardless of whether you love or hate save-or-die effects, they do ensure characters will never become invincible, no matter how high level they rise.

QuoteI explained why, you proceeded to tell me that I don't really understand what we have a problem with

While it's pretty clear that you don't, that had little to do with what I was posting about.

Quoteand to nitpick my choice of words,

Your ideas only survive on the backs of sloppy word choice. Nitpicks are inconsequential. It's not a nitpick when precise parsing leads to a radically different conclusion.

Quoteand now you're hung up on game titles. So I'm out, enjoy that bug up your ass.

I'm not. I made a joke, with an emoticon to signal to the humorless that it was a joke.

Quote from: Lunamancer;969635I've managed to simplify things while keeping spellcasters vulnerable. 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.

First and primarily, discussing the corner cases often causes observers to think that initiative is hopelessly complicated.  This is not the case because the corner cases come up so rarely.  I very much agree that 95% of the time AD&D initiative is incredibly simple.  

I do think that the initiative dice result ties in to segments, as I will discuss below.  However, I think running initiative dice results abstractly as Lunamancer describes is a perfectly functional way to play AD&D.  As an example, Nagora, on the DF boards, has put a lot of work into parsing out initiative and he doesn't believe in putting the dice to segments either.  But in discussions with Nagora he also doesn't believe that casting long spells should spill over into later rounds, and also that initiative where casting time doesn't start until the segment shown on the initiative die makes casters too vulnerable.

I happen to be OK with those results, so I accept text that seems to point to them.  On DF, the most detailed answers from EGG on initiative tied the start of spellcasting to the initiative die result, for instance.  That doesn't mean "EGG hath sayeth so therefore you shall do" if someone knows they don't want that approach, but I give those statements weight in reading the text.

Quote from: Voros;969687what is the advantage of the segments approach in AD&D?

Here is the advantage I see very simply: tactical complexity while retaining a smooth round which allows both sides to make action decisions that minimize randomness.  Randomness shouldn't be removed, because it is always a factor.  But I do think simpler systems reward big spells over smaller spells, and similarly give little reason to think about what you're going to do next beyond "I'm going to try to hit that guy"..."OK roll".

I agree that it would be much clearer if there was a simple statement such as "the initiative result directly ties to the segment of action" or some such.  I really believe that this is omitted because it was so assumed that it was forgotten.  Because when looking at all the rest of the actions which are clearly timed to specific segments, to try to keep the striking of blows or shooting missiles abstract creates more issues than it solves.

We're not talking about complication here.  Both sides are already rolling the die.  Reading the die and using it as a segment of action anchor does not create additional steps or complications.

As for why I believe that, I'll point to a couple of statements which on 1E-specific boards are much debated (and one already referenced in this thread):

QuoteThe initiative factor affects who can do what and when during the course of an encounter of any sort.

QuoteTheir [casting of spells] commencement is dictated by initiative determination as with other attack forms, but their culmination is subject to the stated casting time.

Is it possible to come up with an interpretation that doesn't mean casting of spells along with other attack forms don't start at a time directly derived from the initiative result?  Yes.  Is it possible to say "when, but only relative to another's action"?  Yes.
 As stated, many who firmly believe that casting starts at the beginning of the round will say that there is a indefinite amount of negligible time so that, for instance, if both sides are casting magic missile spells that the winning side is very slightly ahead of the other even though both finish in segment 1.  But I think that's a more tortured reading of the text.

Quote1. Spell casters must note what spell they intend to cast at the beginning of each round prior to any knowledge of which side has initiative.

2. 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 1 st-6th segments of the round.

3. Intelligent monsters able to recognize the danger of spells will direct attacks against spell casters if not engaged by other opponents so as to be prevented from so doing.

4. The spell caster cannot use his or her dexterity bonus to avoid being hit during spell casting; doing so interrupts the spell.

5. Any successful attack, or non-saved-against attack upon the spell caster interrupts the spell.

In this quote, the reader sees that at minimum, none disagree that attacks against a caster do happen in a specific segment.  The difference is if that is considered to only apply against casters.

I don't see the list as caster-specific per se.  I see it as a list that also includes general reminders of all the factors which casters must adhere to in combat which make spell casting difficult.  For instance, all actors must state their action at the beginning of the round prior to the init roll, not just casters.  I don't think that intelligent monsters do not also direct their attacks against other forms of great danger which they recognize as such.  So here is an example of attacks happening on specific segments which, like the examples above and below it, I believe tie into everybody.

I don't believe this complicates things.  I think it simplifies it.  For example, a charge is handled completely outside of the initiative roll.  Why?  Because when the attack happens is a function of two bits of data - how far away the target is and how fast you move.  There is no reason to roll a die.  

QuoteMelee At End of Charge: Initiative is NOT checked at the end of charge movement. The opponent with the longer weapon/reach attacks first.

If you move at 9" you charge 180 feet in a round, or 18 feet a segment.  If you know that the target is 60 feet away then you already know that the two parties will collide in segment 4.  So at that point the only question is who has the longer weapon, or reach?  

Other events are fixed in time.  Spells, as mentioned earlier, are agreed by all as fixed in time - either fixed by casting time alone to a segment, or by casting time + a number of segments on init die, but either way fixed in time.

If you drink a potion, the time between drinking it and it taking effect is fixed in time.  It will take effect 2-5 segments after you drink it.  What is the point of specifying a 2-5 segment delay if you don't know the segment on which the drinking of the potion happens?  That makes no sense to me.  You don't tie a definite period to an abstract.

So when all these factors are tied together, assigning the rest of combat actions a segment makes complete sense.  If you are attacking someone with a sword and they drink a potion of gaseous form, will you hit them before they turn to gas?  If you've lost initiative but know that even though they drank the potion on segment 2 and your telling blow attempt will take place on segment 5, then it's a straight forward answer - the DM will roll the 2-5 segment delay and see if the potion takes effect either on segment 4 or later.  If it takes place later then your attack still has a chance even though you lost initiative.

If you see that one of your buddies when down 60' away, and an enemy is likely to cut their throat next round, will you make it there in time to prevent that from happening?  If you know that your charge will hit home in segment 4 then knowing the segment that the coup de grace attempt will take place based on the initiative die result removes all question.

Likewise, if you want to charge a cleric attempting to command undead against you - will you make it before he can undertake the task?  Same as above.

If missiles and melee attacks get their first chance to damage the opponent before segment 7 starts, then hand-to-hand combat is given an edge over magic.  Because magical activity always has a fixed delay in casting time, or item activation time for wands, potions, etc., that weapon combat doesn't.  I think this goes a long way towards balancing high level play.

If spellcasting has a high probability of not being able to complete in the round in which casting starts when using high-powered spells with long casting times, it goes a long way towards blunting the effect of high level casters on high level play.  This is the effect discussed in PHB pg 104

QuoteUnless combat is spell versus spell, many such attacks will happen near the end of a melee round. This is because the spell requires a relatively lengthy time to cast, generally longer as spell level increases, so high level spells may take over a full melee round to cast.

Again, those who don't like spellcasting spilling over into subsequent rounds for various reasons say that this sentence was discarded when finalizing the AD&D combat system, since it isn't alluded to further in the DMG.  But it seems to me that the simplest reading of the text results in exactly this, and further, as mentioned above, that it is a very good thing that reigns in the power of high level casters.  Complex actions may take multiple rounds.  

I do think that absent the chaos of mixed combat, say, if two wizards were having a wizard duel, that initiative rolls wouldn't take place and it would simply go on casting time with all casting beginning without delay at the start of the round.  Delay from initiative roll I see as a fudge factor for the chaos of complex combats.

Quote from: Lunamancer;969840This is "When weapon speed factor is the determinant of which opponent strikes first in a melee round," not in general. The rules enumerate two cases where weapon speed factor is the determinant--tied initiative, and after a line of longer weapon users has already had their first strike.

When I read through, it looks to me like all aspects of weapon speed between melee combatants - including multiple attacks by fast weapons against slow weapons - are only invoked if the initiative result is tied.  Because even there it says When weapon speed factor is the determinant.  And outside of spellcasting, that is only on a tied die result.

Quote from: EOTB;969912I do think that the initiative dice result ties in to segments, as I will discuss below.  However, I think running initiative dice results abstractly as Lunamancer describes is a perfectly functional way to play AD&D.  As an example, Nagora, on the DF boards, has put a lot of work into parsing out initiative and he doesn't believe in putting the dice to segments either.  But in discussions with Nagora he also doesn't believe that casting long spells should spill over into later rounds, and also that initiative where casting time doesn't start until the segment shown on the initiative die makes casters too vulnerable.

Speaking for myself, I generally don't see casting times spilling over into a new round. Generally. Some spells really do take more than a round to cast. Also, by my house system, it's possible for, say, a mage to use half of his movement, taking up 5 segments of the round, and then cast a spell with segment 6 being the first segment of casting. Somewhere an old-timer probably just suffered a coronary at the mention of a mage being able to both move and cast a spell in the same round.

But other than the mage being occupied for a portion of the round, I don't see any reason why casting wouldn't begin on segment one. It's not like trying to strike a blow against an active defender where you have to wait to find a gap in his defenses before you have the opportunity to land a good shot. There's no waiting. You just start casting. This is the over-riding logic of the D&D combat system.

Now if I wanted to be really brutal to spellcasters, I'd continue to follow the D&D logic and strikes against someone casting a spell would count as a "free attack" allowing the attacker to make a full round of attacks each segment as per surprise. Of course, I simply assume that the mage, when endangered, especially knowing his spell is spoiled anyway, switches to active defense. So the attacker gets just the one normal strike. Where it might make a difference is suppose a thief sneaks to the enemy's back line and the enemy has three adjacent spellcasters. By the logic of D&D combat, we ought to consider allowing the thief to spoil all three as free attacks. If I wanted to run the game like that, it would be defensible in BtB terms.

QuoteI happen to be OK with those results, so I accept text that seems to point to them.  On DF, the most detailed answers from EGG on initiative tied the start of spellcasting to the initiative die result, for instance.  That doesn't mean "EGG hath sayeth so therefore you shall do" if someone knows they don't want that approach, but I give those statements weight in reading the text.

I definitely think DF has gone off the rails in terms of certain rules interpretations, and I tracked at least one such instance as being due to Influence of Gygax. Here's the thing. Back when Gary was answering rules questions on DF, I was literally corresponding with him daily regarding the Lejendary Adventure system. His primary interest was LA, not D&D. He also had the rights to LA, not D&D. I mention this, because you have to understand, when he would field LA rules questions, his answers would often contradict answers he gave someone else 6 months prior. He really wants people to think for themselves and make their own rulings. Now if that was his attitude towards LA, you have to ask how much of the D&D stuff on DF did he really intend to be in any way authoritative? He tended to reaffirm whatever ruling the person posing the question wanted in the first place.

That said. This may be sacrilege these days since playing OOP games means you wear a special badge on your sleeve, and so you have to make sure to do the things that make the out of print edition different from the current edition. Like being adamant about declaring actions before initiative dice are rolled. But back when 1E was in print, and even in the first few years it went out of print but was still heavy in circulation, a lot of DMs did not require pre-declaration of actions. A lot of people just wanted to play it like when their initiative was up it's like, "Oh, it's my turn" and, within reason, they wanted the action to be resolved right after it's announced. In fact, one of the big reasons I house ruled a universal initiative system is because I hated doing pre-dek. It felt like I was going around the table twice to resolve one round's worth of actions. If you're playing like that, then, yeah, I guess the spell isn't going to begin until you get to your initiative. So it wouldn't surprise me at all to learn a lot of people, Gary included, play that way.

QuoteI don't believe this complicates things.  I think it simplifies it.  For example, a charge is handled completely outside of the initiative roll.  Why?  Because when the attack happens is a function of two bits of data - how far away the target is and how fast you move.  There is no reason to roll a die.  

I try to do things like this as often as possible, eliminating superfluous dice rolls. I realize that every time I do that, it brings me one die roll closer to important things happening *gasp* "due to a single die roll"

QuoteIf you drink a potion, the time between drinking it and it taking effect is fixed in time.  It will take effect 2-5 segments after you drink it.  What is the point of specifying a 2-5 segment delay if you don't know the segment on which the drinking of the potion happens?  That makes no sense to me.  You don't tie a definite period to an abstract.

I agree. You can't add two things that don't have matching units. What's stopping the guy from drinking in segment 1, though? If he were trying to stab one, not finding an opening in his opponents defenses would justify some random time delay for the action. Initiative makes sense for that. What's the underlying logic to this action not beginning at the start of the round?

QuoteWhen I read through, it looks to me like all aspects of weapon speed between melee combatants - including multiple attacks by fast weapons against slow weapons - are only invoked if the initiative result is tied.  Because even there it says When weapon speed factor is the determinant.  And outside of spellcasting, that is only on a tied die result.

I've always been inclined to think the same thing. It's just that since both PHB and DMG talk about line-o-pikes as a special case, I find it hard to ignore. Neither come straight out and spell out how it's handled, but it does refer to after the initial strike is determined by weapon length, then weapon speed determines the next round.

It's almost as if what's being imagined here is that while most of combat may be chaotic, when two opponents close to striking range, we know with absolute certainty the one with the longer weapon will be close enough to strike before the one with the longer weapon will. And since we know with absolute certainty the long weapon is going first, we also absolutely know it needs to be re-readied leaving the attacker vulnerable, so we look to weapon speed to answer whether and to what extent the former defender can capitalize on the opportunity.

There's a guy's sig on Dragonsfoot that goes something like: "AD&D1e initiative rules are the Kobayashi Maru test of roleplaying: there is no right answer, the point is to find out who you are."

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;969995There's a guy's sig on Dragonsfoot that goes something like: "AD&D1e initiative rules are the Kobayashi Maru test of roleplaying: there is no right answer, the point is to find out who you are."

I really don't believe that's true, either. I think gamers over-complicate it.

Quote from: Lunamancer;970001I think gamers over-complicate it.

Can we just copy and paste that into every online RPG debate forum?

The initiative rules of AD&D1e are scattered across two books, incoherent and self-contradictory, as well as relying one at least one optional system. There's no need for gamers to over-complicate it when Gygax already did it for us.

Now, we all have our own coherent non-contradictory versions of these initiative rules. But that comes from ignoring or changing things in the books. And that's okay.

QuoteThere's no need for gamers to over-complicate it when Gygax already did it for us.

Now, we all have our own coherent non-contradictory versions of these initiative rules. But that comes from ignoring or changing things in the books. And that's okay.

Ha...very true.

Quote from: Lunamancer;970001I really don't believe that's true, either. I think gamers over-complicate it.

Certainly, and initiative threads are something I've mostly stopped bothering with these days.  If it were't that the subject of the thread was "is there a version of D&D that doesn't suck at high level" I wouldn't bother, but since I do think this is where all the bits and bobs of 1E can shine in comparison to other editions, why not?

And I really do think that assigning the initiative roll result to a segment tremendously simplifies things.  Once you do that, all the various statements in AD&D in the initiative section are pretty harmonious and can apply as written without qualifiers or "well, what if"s.

Quote from: Lunamancer;969977I agree. You can't add two things that don't have matching units. What's stopping the guy from drinking [a potion] in segment 1, though? If he were trying to stab one, not finding an opening in his opponents defenses would justify some random time delay for the action. Initiative makes sense for that. What's the underlying logic to this action not beginning at the start of the round?

Because magic item use is said to be subject to initiative determination.  And under spell casting it says that casting "commencement is dictated by initiative determination as with other attack forms".  It keeps making statements that all this stuff is subject ot initiative determination.  The beginning of a round is not subject to initiative determination.

QuoteThese attacks are the spell-like discharge functions of rods, staves, wands and any similar items. These attacks can occur simultaneously with the discharge of missiles, spell casting, and/or turning undead. The time of such discharge by any magical device is subject to initiative determination.

When the book says "attack" I don't think that precludes defensive or misc  magic.  Potions, scrolls, rings of telekinesis, bowls of water elemental control - almost all items that have to be activated (as opposed to a ring of spell turning) have a spell-like discharge and are similar items to R,S,W.  I see them all under "the time of discharge by any magical device is subject to initiative determination".  R,S,W are most likely to be used in combat, and so deserve highlighting, but I don't see this section as exclusive to those three.

It also says "time of such discharge".  Not order of such discharge.  And the section on time divides the round into segments.

Likewise, turning is subject to initative determination:

QuoteTurning can occur at the same time as missile discharge, magical device attacks, and/or spell casting. It also is subject to initiative determination.

If turning is subject to initiative rolls, why wouldn't casting web or drinking a potion of giant control?  How could an argument that drinking a potion should start apart from initiative for whatever reason not apply to something so simple as turning?

Quote from: Lunamancer;969977But other than the mage being occupied for a portion of the round, I don't see any reason why casting wouldn't begin on segment one. It's not like trying to strike a blow against an active defender where you have to wait to find a gap in his defenses before you have the opportunity to land a good shot. There's no waiting. You just start casting. This is the over-riding logic of the D&D combat system.  

First off, I do believe that initiative rolls are not always appropriate.  I think that any person not immediately threatened, or trying to in some way interact with a combat zone (such as shooting at something fighting) should have their actions start at the beginning of the round whether that's casting or whatever.  

This is why there is a paragraph under the heading "Actions During Combat And Similar Time-Important Situations" where it ends with an example of someone who clearly isn't in combat but near it, and doesn't have to roll initiative dice for any of several actions he wishes to undertake before entering a combat occurring nearby Including using potions and such, during which Gygax explains that wouldn't necessarily be easy to do and should have a delay even if initiative dice aren't rolled).  So I do see the additional variable effect of initiative being added to other units of time only applying if someone is threatened by another having a choice/action available to them which can immediately harm (or shooting into chaos hoping to hit a specific target - a troop of archers 100 yards away indiscriminately group-firing into a zone wouldn't apply, for example).  

Another example of no init roll being needed in the line about spell-v-spell mage duels being different from combat casting in that such spells are not as likely to spill over, which makes sense if that sort of combat starts casting at the beginning of a round.

But I think there's a lot of minor and variable things which delay the start of an act that are abstracted by the initiative roll - the section with the paragraph describing feints and such you mentioned starts out saying "The system assumes much activity during the course of each round".  The specific example to illustrate the point is a melee but I don't think it's exclusive to melee.  There's lots of process steps to completing non-melee actions which make sense as situationally variable, like: was the potion easy to get out of wherever you stored it (most people don't walk around with a potion in their hands); getting spell components out of your pockets; making minor adjustments to your position so that you have the space you need for a spell's somatic components; keeping your head on a swivel and scanning the area for immediate threats before casting starts, like whether a thief might be sneaking up on you, or whether unnoticed archers have entered the fray.

Like I said, allowing for the segment of action to equal the die result makes everything click.  (For fair disclosure, advocates of the other side point to "the blink problem", which I don't see as a problem but won't derail this further unless someone wanted to know why I don't see it as a problem.) As another example of making stuff easily click, when talking about missile use it says:

Quote[missile discharge] can occur simultaneously with magical device attacks, spell casting, or turning of undead. Magical device and spell attacks can negate the effects of or damage some missiles, i.e., arrows fired off simultaneously with the discharge of a fireball spell, or a javelin hurled into an ice storm, or a dwarven hammer tossed at an opponent struck by a fireball or lightning bolt. As referee you will have to determine the final results according to circumstances. This is not difficult using the ITEM SAVING THROW table.

If I say that cone of cold starts casting at the beginning of a round, and completes at the end of segment 5, what is the variable that pushes the javelin throw to happening that late if its starting at the beginning of the round independent of initiative also and always takes place on segment 3?  

If both the missile attack and the cone of cold are subject to a segment determined by the initiative roll, this is possible - the cone of cold could start at the beginning of the round or at the start of segment 2 with a favorable roll result, and complete on segment 5 or 6, while the javelin gets an unfavorable roll result and isn't thrown at the M-U until segment 5 or 6.

This is why I say this is all tremendously simplifying, even if it paradoxically takes a lot of text to support it.

Quote from: Lunamancer;969977Speaking for myself, I generally don't see casting times spilling over into a new round. Generally. Some spells really do take more than a round to cast.

Certainly there are many that aren't counted in segments.  It's the correlation to high level spilling over that makes me think that isn't what they were talking about because those types of spells are scattered throughout the levels instead of being primarily grouped.  That, and spell-v-spell combat wouldn't make any difference if something is listed as having a casting time of a turn for example.

Quote from: Lunamancer;969977Now if I wanted to be really brutal to spellcasters, I'd continue to follow the D&D logic and strikes against someone casting a spell would count as a "free attack" allowing the attacker to make a full round of attacks each segment as per surprise. Of course, I simply assume that the mage, when endangered, especially knowing his spell is spoiled anyway, switches to active defense. So the attacker gets just the one normal strike. Where it might make a difference is suppose a thief sneaks to the enemy's back line and the enemy has three adjacent spellcasters. By the logic of D&D combat, we ought to consider allowing the thief to spoil all three as free attacks. If I wanted to run the game like that, it would be defensible in BtB terms.

I'm not so sure.  Even a stunned, motionless or prone opponent must be attacked using your regular roll and can be missed - there is a bonus, of course, but it isn't automatic, or additional to your normal attack.  A casting mage is dancing around so isn't motionless (or if not dancing around because no somatic components than isn't really hindered by the casting all that much).  I think the loss of dex bonus to AC, if any, covers this.  A regular backstab isn't treated as you describe.  The only free attacks are if someone is running away.  I don't think a casting M-U is the same as this threshold.

Quote from: Lunamancer;969977Here's the thing. Back when Gary was answering rules questions on DF, I was literally corresponding with him daily regarding the Lejendary Adventure system. His primary interest was LA, not D&D. He also had the rights to LA, not D&D. I mention this, because you have to understand, when he would field LA rules questions, his answers would often contradict answers he gave someone else 6 months prior. He really wants people to think for themselves and make their own rulings. Now if that was his attitude towards LA, you have to ask how much of the D&D stuff on DF did he really intend to be in any way authoritative? He tended to reaffirm whatever ruling the person posing the question wanted in the first place.

Good point, and granted.  I can think of a lot of stuff where someone would lay out a scenario and he would say (basically) "yeah, sure".  And then someone else would lay out a scenario that was opposite and he would say "yeah, sure".  

The reason I take these a bit more seriously is because he wasn't saying "yeah, sure" - he was supplying his own details.

But anyway, all in good fun.  I do think people should use whatever system works for their group - that's far more important.  It's just that this works very well with mine.  M-Us memorize fewer combat spells and use magical items more in combat, just like the books describe.  That didn't happen until I did it this way, and it really works to reign in combat in high level play like nothing else I've tried.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;970013The initiative rules of AD&D1e are scattered across two books, incoherent and self-contradictory, as well as relying one at least one optional system.

See what I mean by over-complicating things? Everything you need to know about initiative is contained in the DMG. It takes a bit of creativity (active over-complication) to imagine the PHB is saying something different and the two need to be coordinated somehow.

Calling it self-contradictory is straight-up asinine considering you could have actually cited the contradiction. Then you'd have evidence. Or would have actually cued me into whatever the hell it is you're talking about.

Quote from: EOTB;970015And I really do think that assigning the initiative roll result to a segment tremendously simplifies things.  Once you do that, all the various statements in AD&D in the initiative section are pretty harmonious and can apply as written without qualifiers or "well, what if"s.

I don't know that it simplifies things. Boils things down to arithmetic that makes nerds more comfortable? Sure. I personally don't think that's a plus.

QuoteBecause magic item use is said to be subject to initiative determination.  And under spell casting it says that casting "commencement is dictated by initiative determination as with other attack forms".  It keeps making statements that all this stuff is subject ot initiative determination.  The beginning of a round is not subject to initiative determination.

"Initiative determination" does not equate to "initiative die roll." As we've been discussing, there are other determinants such as weapons speed factor.

QuoteWhen the book says "attack" I don't think that precludes defensive or misc  magic.  Potions, scrolls, rings of telekinesis, bowls of water elemental control - almost all items that have to be activated (as opposed to a ring of spell turning) have a spell-like discharge and are similar items to R,S,W.  I see them all under "the time of discharge by any magical device is subject to initiative determination".  R,S,W are most likely to be used in combat, and so deserve highlighting, but I don't see this section as exclusive to those three.

It also says "time of such discharge".  Not order of such discharge.  And the section on time divides the round into segments.

Likewise, turning is subject to initative determination:

If turning is subject to initiative rolls, why wouldn't casting web or drinking a potion of giant control?  How could an argument that drinking a potion should start apart from initiative for whatever reason not apply to something so simple as turning?

Sounds like those are all something other than striking blows, so they're handled with the catch-all "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." Sure. They're "subject to initiative determination" (which I'm not sure is any more profound than saying "Ya gotta wait your turn") but determination is weapon speed factor if a weapon is being used. If your racing your activation time against some other timed action (slamming shut a door for instance), it's just whatever takes less time goes first. If it's a monster attack, then it's the die roll.

QuoteFirst off, I do believe that initiative rolls are not always appropriate.  I think that any person not immediately threatened, or trying to in some way interact with a combat zone (such as shooting at something fighting) should have their actions start at the beginning of the round whether that's casting or whatever.  

What, you don't roll initiative to see who gets to parlay first?

QuoteAnother example of no init roll being needed in the line about spell-v-spell mage duels being different from combat casting in that such spells are not as likely to spill over, which makes sense if that sort of combat starts casting at the beginning of a round.

Right. And you'll notice all the nitty-gritty sections of the initiative system always involve at least one party striking blows. It doesn't need to specify a sub-system for spell vs spell or item use vs item use or shutting door vs opening window.

QuoteBut I think there's a lot of minor and variable things which delay the start of an act that are abstracted by the initiative roll - the section with the paragraph describing feints and such you mentioned starts out saying "The system assumes much activity during the course of each round".  The specific example to illustrate the point is a melee but I don't think it's exclusive to melee.  There's lots of process steps to completing non-melee actions which make sense as situationally variable, like: was the potion easy to get out of wherever you stored it (most people don't walk around with a potion in their hands); getting spell components out of your pockets; making minor adjustments to your position so that you have the space you need for a spell's somatic components; keeping your head on a swivel and scanning the area for immediate threats before casting starts, like whether a thief might be sneaking up on you, or whether unnoticed archers have entered the fray.

See, now this is the sort of thing I really dislike, and that's what my above comment about turning the system into arithmetic is not necessarily a good thing alludes to. Although it takes some judgment on the DMs part, each of those micro-actions, grabbing your potion, spell components, and so forth, can be assigned a segment time. I actually saw a character sheet a long, long time ago that had a body diagram for the equipment section with segment times listed telling how much time it takes to grab various items. I'd rather get specific than try to abstract that in a random roll. For one, it's more descriptive. For two, it does give the player a little more control. Three, it's more interactive--something might happen that after you've taken off your backpack but before you reached in to make you think going for that potion isn't the way to go so you can fish for a different item instead. Four, it gives weight to choices in action sequences that have nothing to do with magic or violence.

All in all, though, this is a great point you raise. I ask questions because I find them important and go to the heart of the matter. Self-conscious forum nerds tend to assume my questions are argumentative. They're not. They are legit questions. And you gave a legit answer to my question of "why wouldn't it start on segment 1." So if a spell takes 3 different spell components, that's a minimum of 3 segments to grab them, assuming they're neatly stored in pockets. A larger component held in a backpack? Well, that's a segment to remove the backpack, a segment to open it, and a third to grab the item. In this example, that's 5 segments before the spell casting begins. If the casting time is 6 segments or more, then, yeah, it's rolling over to the next round.

Come to think of it... this seems like pretty cool stuff for a magic dual. Imagine the player strategically placing his spell components. When the two mages face off, they have to quickly draw their components almost like gunslingers.

QuoteIf I say that cone of cold starts casting at the beginning of a round, and completes at the end of segment 5, what is the variable that pushes the javelin throw to happening that late if its starting at the beginning of the round independent of initiative also and always takes place on segment 3?

Ranged weapons have a rate of fire. By virtue of being a rate, that number has units attached, and the unit in question has a time element, so those I sync to segments.

QuoteCertainly there are many that aren't counted in segments.  It's the correlation to high level spilling over that makes me think that isn't what they were talking about because those types of spells are scattered throughout the levels instead of being primarily grouped.  That, and spell-v-spell combat wouldn't make any difference if something is listed as having a casting time of a turn for example.

I thought of another reason why "higher" level spells might spill over to the next round. If it's begun on a surprise round.

QuoteBut anyway, all in good fun.  I do think people should use whatever system works for their group - that's far more important.  It's just that this works very well with mine.  M-Us memorize fewer combat spells and use magical items more in combat, just like the books describe.  That didn't happen until I did it this way, and it really works to reign in combat in high level play like nothing else I've tried.

Yeah, and that's really what counts. Almost everything we're talking about is moot if you avoid casting spells and knocking back potions while someone is literally right in your grill trying to stab your throat. Common sense rulings make weird special cases go away. So I stand by my interpretation of 1E's initiative system. Each side rolls d6. Highest goes first. Common sense exceptions apply.

Is this what you guys do on K&KA all day? :eek:

The basic initiative system works fine. Its the wording of the speed factor that is ambiguous since some will read it as only applying to ties and the rest applying it in other ways by their reading of the rules.

Its trying to reconcile all the disparate ways its used that things get weird. Theres 10 segments in a round.
But basic initiative uses only 6.
But some weapons go as much as speed 13.
And spells up to 9 segments long.
And so on.

In 5e for some reason they decided to pretty much dispose of casting interruption and instead went with concentration interruption. And shifted some spells accordingly. In fact quite a few spells now are concentration based as noted before.

I love how everyone says 'basic initiative works fine' then proceed to write an essay explaining all the complications piled onto it. As if there were a Basic system underneath that worked fine without all the rocco rules. But what could we call it??

Quote from: Voros;970050I love how everyone says 'basic initiative works fine' then proceed to write an essay explaining all the complications piled onto it. As if there were a Basic system underneath that worked fine without all the rocco rules. But what could we call it??

Well, it is a bit of a linguistic conundrum. The underlying base is simple, with some convoluted exceptions that make the whole significantly more complex. And of course that language describing it--how shall we say it?-- could have been more straightforward (EGG's writing style, another way to pad your post count on DF or K&KA ).

My take: 1e initiative is not as complicated as the myth has grown to. It probably is more complicated than it needs to be to accomplish the goals it serves. However, just cutting it and using something like B/X initiative changes how things work (and the changes that 2e did make altered the balance between various action types, perhaps not for the better).