Quote from: Scooter on October 08, 2023, 10:39:02 AM
I deal with spell disruption logically.  E.g. no matter who wins init if a spell caster is throwing something that takes an entire combat round (10 seconds) to cast he will not get it off before the archer ready with arrow knocked can shoot him.  This tends to make spell caster not as deadly.

That's pretty much how I handle it. Any spell that isn't specifically a Free Action/Reaction goes after anyone who's ready to act at the start of the round. And any spell that takes one or more rounds to cast is cast at the end of the round. Anyone acting before that could potentially disrupt it. Otherwise the spell is cast at the same time as anyone either taking preparations or attempting something that takes one or more rounds, without disruption.

Quote from: Bruwulf on October 07, 2023, 03:15:20 PM
Racial level caps.

"Hey, you get a few neat things at level one that will quickly become less and less important and more and more easily compensated for by spells and magic items as time goes on. Also, you live longer, which will probably never actually come up. So as a result, you just basically have to stop getting better at stuff at an arbitrary point in time at which all those perks you're paying for are now basically irrelevant and forgotten."

90%+ of the time I never even got the chance to ignore this rule, cuz the campaign never got that far ahead on level progression. That's how effective it is at supposedly mitigating racial benefits.

Quote from: VisionStorm on October 08, 2023, 01:56:02 PM

Quote from: Bruwulf on October 07, 2023, 03:15:20 PM
Racial level caps.

"Hey, you get a few neat things at level one that will quickly become less and less important and more and more easily compensated for by spells and magic items as time goes on. Also, you live longer, which will probably never actually come up. So as a result, you just basically have to stop getting better at stuff at an arbitrary point in time at which all those perks you're paying for are now basically irrelevant and forgotten."

90%+ of the time I never even got the chance to ignore this rule, cuz the campaign never got that far ahead on level progression. That's how effective it is at supposedly mitigating racial benefits.

That's one reason I like the racial bonus for humans with C&C.  It is immediate and meaningful.  Same with the penalty side for demi humans.

Quote from: Venka on October 05, 2023, 03:46:10 PMI mean, I disagree, especially with initiative.  Without some sense of how play order is supposed to progress, tables can and do spend a bunch of time on small details, and the DM hurrying that along could easily get a played totally wasted.  AD&D 2e had a goofy initiative system, but it was well defined and worked ok and had design space for a ton of weapons.  If you go out there with a guy with two short knives and a plan, it's better if you knew ahead of time whether you get to stab the other guy once, twice, or some number up to eight depending on if he's holding a slow enough stick or axe.  It's reasonable to know that kind of information when you decide to be Double Dagger Guy.

Well I am not saying to have NO rules at all, just that trying to shoehorn the infinity of reality into a set of codified rules that allow no variation or deviance is stupid. You give the DM a framework and examples and let them make it their own game, adding as they see fit, whatever makes sense to them.

But see, I realize that's the entire issue here. In Ye Olde Dayes, especially with the wargamer crowd, this sort of thing was fully expected and appreciated. You sit down to play D&D with Bill, it's going to be a lot different than playing with Ted. And that was okay. "My DM allows us to time travel!" "Ours doesn't, but all the characters can play guitar." Or whatever. Every game was different, and no one thought anything about it. Some games were Monty Haul bullshit, but when you're 12 a thief with a TIE fighter makes perfect sense. Not saying who was running that game, but it was fun. Then the older dudes had game worlds with intrigue and actual villains that weren't just rando goblins to kill, you had to use your brain to solve puzzles and whatever else. But all those games were a reflection of the DMs running the games.

Now, we really don't have that nearly as much, if at all. I think if someone like Tenbones were to run AD&D for us (meaning most of the posters on this board), we probably wouldn't question his house rules. "Oh you use a d12 for initiative like and also magic-users get a d6 for hit points. Okay." That'd be about it. Do you really think the retards on reddit and even in the hobby shops playing 5th edition BtB would just be okay with that? I can already imagine the arguments in my head before the game even started...they want HARD RULES ON A PAGE AND ANY DEVIATION WILL BE MET WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE! Yeah, but why? Because for whatever reason, the craft of being a good DM is gone. I think that has more to do with player entitlement than anything else. D&D 3rd didn't start the trend, but given that it dwarfed everything else, the whole "at level X you need Y amount of treasure and Z amount of conflict" really really really accelerated this nonsense to the extreme end of stupidity. When I first started playing, arguing with the DM meant you were gonna get fucked in-game, and if you continued you got kicked out. The End. Now, the players will bitch about pure stupidity ad nauseam because God forbid their 3rd level ranger doesn't have a magic bow yet! Hey, can we get some bags of holding, too, Mr. DM?

So anyway, hard(er) rules are necessary because without them the DM is gonna hear endless crying and whining. Instead of the DM laying out how the game is supposed to work and the players buying in, they show up with a character who has a 45 page backstory and uses thirteen splat books, with every single level mapped out on graph paper, including what magic items they'll get and when. You're not wrong, but I think you're right for different reasons than you might think...

Quote from: Brad on October 08, 2023, 04:10:20 PM


Well I am not saying to have NO rules at all, just that trying to shoehorn the infinity of reality into a set of codified rules that allow no variation or deviance is stupid. You give the DM a framework and examples and let them make it their own game, adding as they see fit, whatever makes sense to them.

Yes, this is how to run a D&D game that is enjoyable.  Reality is far to complex to model closely with rules.  Best to let a GM handle things as they come up using a broad framework

Rolemaster (2nd ed and others i think) had a stupid amount of penalties for wearing armor  and various other things (I remember first learning the rules and thinking that the authors had a thing for penalties). Even though armor already had a higher probability of being hit (but less likely to take serious damage).

Quote from: VisionStorm on October 08, 2023, 01:56:02 PM

Quote from: Bruwulf on October 07, 2023, 03:15:20 PM
Racial level caps.

"Hey, you get a few neat things at level one that will quickly become less and less important and more and more easily compensated for by spells and magic items as time goes on. Also, you live longer, which will probably never actually come up. So as a result, you just basically have to stop getting better at stuff at an arbitrary point in time at which all those perks you're paying for are now basically irrelevant and forgotten."

90%+ of the time I never even got the chance to ignore this rule, cuz the campaign never got that far ahead on level progression. That's how effective it is at supposedly mitigating racial benefits.

Right. It's just a flat-out bad rule, yet it gets defended incredibly loudly by some OSRers.

I view it as an indefensible sacred cow of game design that is almost irrelevant in practice, trivially easily fixed, doesn't actually impact the play feel of the game, and yet almost universally retained for... Reasons.

I hold it against any OSR game that retains it. And so many do.

Most of the defenses are either that it's for balance... Which it objectively does poorly at best, and more realistically doesn't do period. Or that it's because Gary wanted/people want humanocentric games... But in practice I've never seen it actually deter anyone from playing a non human, because 95%+ of characters will never make it to those levels anyway.

It's just dumb.

Quote from: Scooter on October 08, 2023, 10:39:02 AM

Quote from: Exploderwizard on October 08, 2023, 09:24:26 AM

Individual initiative does suck and is one major contributor to why people zone out and don't pay attention to what is happening until it is their personal turn. Good old side based initiative works just fine with combat rounds being simultaneous 1/6 of the time. Without determination of some order, spell disruption is not possible. Only at very low levels is getting killed by the other side going first an issue unless you are dealing with a devastating spell effect, a dragon's breath, or something of that nature.

Yes.  A couple years later I started running AD&D games I switched to side based init.  The positive change in players enjoyment of combat was very noticeable.

I deal with spell disruption logically.  E.g. no matter who wins init if a spell caster is throwing something that takes an entire combat round (10 seconds) to cast he will not get it off before the archer ready with arrow knocked can shoot him.  This tends to make spell caster not as deadly.

An entire combat round is one minute in AD&D. Most spells take a number of segments which are 6 seconds each, there being 10 segments per round. The segments of casting time compared to the speed factor of the weapon used against them determines what happens first. A quick weapon vs  a long casting time spell could strike first even if the weapon user loses initiative.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on October 09, 2023, 07:31:09 AM

An entire combat round is one minute in AD&D. Most spells take a number of segments which are 6 seconds each, there being 10 segments per round. The segments of casting time compared to the speed factor of the weapon used against them determines what happens first. A quick weapon vs  a long casting time spell could strike first even if the weapon user loses initiative.

Right so the arrow ready takes LESS time to hit the MU than the 6 second Magic missile spell takes to cast.  So if a hit the spell is ruined

Quote from: Scooter on October 09, 2023, 08:53:13 AM

Quote from: Exploderwizard on October 09, 2023, 07:31:09 AM

An entire combat round is one minute in AD&D. Most spells take a number of segments which are 6 seconds each, there being 10 segments per round. The segments of casting time compared to the speed factor of the weapon used against them determines what happens first. A quick weapon vs  a long casting time spell could strike first even if the weapon user loses initiative.

Right so the arrow ready takes LESS time to hit the MU than the 6 second Magic missile spell takes to cast.  So if a hit the spell is ruined

IIRC ranged weapons do not have speed factor.

(which is another oddity IMO)

Quote from: Brad on October 08, 2023, 04:10:20 PMNow, we really don't have that nearly as much, if at all. I think if someone like Tenbones were to run AD&D for us (meaning most of the posters on this board), we probably wouldn't question his house rules. "Oh you use a d12 for initiative like and also magic-users get a d6 for hit points. Okay." That'd be about it. Do you really think the retards on reddit and even in the hobby shops playing 5th edition BtB would just be okay with that? I can already imagine the arguments in my head before the game even started...they want HARD RULES ON A PAGE AND ANY DEVIATION WILL BE MET WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE! Yeah, but why? Because for whatever reason, the craft of being a good DM is gone. I think that has more to do with player entitlement than anything else. D&D 3rd didn't start the trend, but given that it dwarfed everything else, the whole "at level X you need Y amount of treasure and Z amount of conflict" really really really accelerated this nonsense to the extreme end of stupidity. When I first started playing, arguing with the DM meant you were gonna get fucked in-game, and if you continued you got kicked out. The End. Now, the players will bitch about pure stupidity ad nauseam because God forbid their 3rd level ranger doesn't have a magic bow yet! Hey, can we get some bags of holding, too, Mr. DM?

At the risk of stating the very obvious in  slightly offensive way, a lot of bad DMs are responsible for why a lot of players think this way.

Not exclusively! There's certainly some real player entitlement and bad behavior picked up from MMOs and other things at play too, but you only have to get screwed a few times by DMs making really bad house rules, particularly ones they make up after the game starts, for you to get wary whenever a DM says "hold on, I have a house rule for that...".

I lost a particularly beloved dwarven thief to "dwarves can't swim, they're too dense" many, many years ago.

It would have been fucking helpful to know that before I got on the damned boat, Zach!

Quote from: Bruwulf on October 09, 2023, 11:13:40 AM
At the risk of stating the very obvious in  slightly offensive way, a lot of bad DMs are responsible for why a lot of players think this way.!

Yeah, of course. And I knew a couple of bad DMs who didn't have players after a while because of stupid nonsense. The best part is no amount of codification will ever outpace a bad DM, so trying to write down a set of iron-clad rules that are impenetrable to terrible DMing is going to fail. And you also piss off the good ones who move on to other games.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 09, 2023, 09:12:20 AM

Quote from: Scooter on October 09, 2023, 08:53:13 AM

Quote from: Exploderwizard on October 09, 2023, 07:31:09 AM

An entire combat round is one minute in AD&D. Most spells take a number of segments which are 6 seconds each, there being 10 segments per round. The segments of casting time compared to the speed factor of the weapon used against them determines what happens first. A quick weapon vs  a long casting time spell could strike first even if the weapon user loses initiative.

Right so the arrow ready takes LESS time to hit the MU than the 6 second Magic missile spell takes to cast.  So if a hit the spell is ruined

IIRC ranged weapons do not have speed factor.

(which is another oddity IMO)

Correct. So missile fire users have to win initiative in order to disrupt a spell.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on October 09, 2023, 12:11:38 PM

Correct. So missile fire users have to win initiative in order to disrupt a spell.

If the spell is only a couple of segments to cast. If a whole round, no

Quote from: Exploderwizard on October 09, 2023, 07:31:09 AM
An entire combat round is one minute in AD&D. Most spells take a number of segments which are 6 seconds each, there being 10 segments per round. The segments of casting time compared to the speed factor of the weapon used against them determines what happens first. A quick weapon vs  a long casting time spell could strike first even if the weapon user loses initiative.

Uh-oh, looks like someone made a claim about initiative systems in AD&D!  AD&D 1e has "segments" which are six seconds each, so that part both checks out and makes it clear we are not talking about AD&D 2e.  So far so good!

QuoteMost spells take a number of segments which are 6 seconds each, there being 10 segments per round.

So far this is also generally true about AD&D 1e.

QuoteThe segments of casting time compared to the speed factor of the weapon used against them determines what happens first.

Nope!  Only under very specific circumstances is this true.  First, you're talking about the "speed factor of the weapon", which means that we are talking about one or more melee weapons attacking a caster.  For simplicity's sake, lets assume we aren't talking about the surprise segments, and we'll assume that the melee weapon user is already within melee range (the charge mechanics require a different mechanic).

Lets assume Sam Shortsword (weapon speed factor 3) is trying to attack Charlie Caster.  Sam's side rolled 5 on initiative and Charlie's side rolled 4 on initiative.  Charlie had decided to cast invisibility (casting time 2 segments).  Does Charlie get to cast before Sam attacks?  No!  In this case, winning initiative guarantees that Sam gets to attack Charlie first.  If the melee attacker wins initiative, weapon speed factor is ignored.
Ok, what about if Sam's side rolled 1 on initiative, and Charlie's side rolled 6.  That seems like the best possible result for Charlie here, right?  6 is the highest number on the initiative die, and 1 is the lowest.  What we do here is take 3 (weapon speed factor) minus 1 (losing initiative die), and get 2.  Charlie finishes his cast as Sam attacks him.  Sam may get the hit in, but Charlie is invisible.  What if Sam, who just missed interrupting the initiative, had rolled a 2 instead of a 1?  Then we would have had 1, and Sam WOULD have interrupted (assuming he hits).  Similarly with if Sam's side had rolled a 3 (yielding 0), or a 4 (yielding 1).  But a 5 would have yielded the same 2 (and therefore a tie) as the 1 did.  This is because you treat negative numbers as positive on this math.   If the melee attacker loses initiative, weapon speed factor is part of a goofy calculation and he may go first, simultaneously, or after the spell is cast.
Ok, what if they TIED?  Both initiative dice the same?
In the case of a tie, the short sword (weapon speed factor 3) will strike after the spell cast (casting time 2), in a direct comparison.  But ONLY in the case of a tie.

QuoteA quick weapon vs  a long casting time spell could strike first even if the weapon user loses initiative.

Yes, but again it's strange.  If your quick weapon is a dagger (weapon speed 2), and the caster's side won initiative with a 6, then your possible losing scores of 1 through 5 would be as such:
1: 2-1 = 1, beats 2 or longer
2: 2-2 = 2, beats 1 or longer
3: 2-3 = 1, beats 2 or longer
4: 2-4 = 2, beats 3 or longer
5: 2-5 = 3, beats 4 or longer.
But if your "quick weapon" is a morning star (weapon speed 7, not very quick), you could still interrupt a lot of high level spells:
1: 7-1 = 6, beats 7 or longer
2: 7-2 = 5, beats 6 or longer
3: 7-3 = 4, beats 5 or longer
4: 7-4 = 3, beats 4 or longer
5: 7-5 = 2, beats 3 or longer.

Note that this is melee.  Ranged weapons are a whole different thing (they don't have a weapon speed factor at all).  Charging is a whole different thing.  The surprise segment prior to initiative are a whole different thing.  Etc.