This is probably one of those paradigm shifts. We have gone from "I'll almost never get a spell off in combat" (1e) to "I might get a spell off in combat" (2e) to "I almost certainly will get a spell off in combat" (3/3.5e) now to "I might get a spell off in combat at mid level, never will at low level, and always will at high level." (pfRPG)
Fixed your quote for you ;-)
The only real issue I have with casting in melee being so tough at low level is touch spells. Clearly they are meant for use in melee, so why is casting them in melee so very tough. Spells like shoking grasp are built for emergency situations when the wizard is caught in melee. I would think it would thus be easy to cast in melee, but unfortunately it isn't. You know how using ranged touch provokes attacks of oppertunity is a special case maybe touch spells should by their nature not provoke attacks of oppertunity. Just a thought.
The only real issue I have with casting in melee being so tough at low level is touch spells. Clearly they are meant for use in melee, so why is casting them in melee so very tough. Spells like shoking grasp are built for emergency situations when the wizard is caught in melee. I would think it would thus be easy to cast in melee, but unfortunately it isn't. You know how using ranged touch provokes attacks of oppertunity is a special case maybe touch spells should by their nature not provoke attacks of oppertunity. Just a thought.
I can see where you're coming from, and it makes sense. Of course, since (2 x spell level) plays a large role in the casting defensively DC, a shocking grasp cast by anyone with a few levels is going to be an auto-success, but that doesn't do much for low-level casters, nor for higher-level spells.
The only real issue I have with casting in melee being so tough at low level is touch spells. Clearly they are meant for use in melee, so why is casting them in melee so very tough.
Also note that Paizo introduced a metric crapload of new touch attacks (from cleric domains, wizard schools and sorcerer bloodlines), all of which are spell-like abilities, which therefore provoke attacks of opportunity when used in combat.
:-/
The only real issue I have with casting in melee being so tough at low level is touch spells. Clearly they are meant for use in melee, so why is casting them in melee so very tough. Spells like shoking grasp are built for emergency situations when the wizard is caught in melee. I would think it would thus be easy to cast in melee, but unfortunately it isn't. You know how using ranged touch provokes attacks of oppertunity is a special case maybe touch spells should by their nature not provoke attacks of oppertunity. Just a thought.
THIS might be a good compromise. Keep RAW, aside from the fact that spells that are touch (not ranged touch) such as shocking grasp, burning hands, vampiric touch, ect do not provoke AOO. That way that there are some spells that you can reasonably cast in combat, but if your trying to get off a Acid Arrow or a scorching ray and theres baddies around you your going to pay for it.
|
Whenever I see posts wailing about the "nerfing" of casters and other posts replying "WTF?", I see a group of relative newcomers being answered by a bunch of old-timers: "You think casters have it bad now? Why, you kids get everything! Back in my day, we couldn't FLY to wizard school, we had to walk, uphill both ways...!"
Whatcha sayin' mang? Joo sayin' I'm some kinda n00b?
:P
;)
Whenever I see posts wailing about the "nerfing" of casters and other posts replying "WTF?", I see a group of relative newcomers being answered by a bunch of old-timers: "You think casters have it bad now? Why, you kids get everything! Back in my day, we couldn't FLY to wizard school, we had to walk, uphill both ways...!""...through nasty enchanted woods filled with all kinds of critters wanting to eat us, and not a cantrip to our name. Man, woulda been nice to even be ABLE to strap on armor to try and keep the lumps down. Sheesh..."
"Of course, we also had a spell for turning a turnip into a purple worm, so it wasn't all bad..."
;-)
Hogarth -- I think that's exactly what Derek is trying to say is well -- maybe we should nerf the casting itself, rather than the spells? If it's REALLY hard to get a spell off, then you want it to be equally spectacular if it actually works.
|
|
Hogarth -- I think that's exactly what Derek is trying to say is well -- maybe we should nerf the casting itself, rather than the spells? If it's REALLY hard to get a spell off, then you want it to be equally spectacular if it actually works.
More like "de-buff" (i.e. de-3.x) the casting, using 1e as a baseline.
But, yeah. I hate, HATE, spell nerfs. Make casting under duress harder, but leave the "Damn!" in the spells...
Hogarth -- I think that's exactly what Derek is trying to say is well -- maybe we should nerf the casting itself, rather than the spells? If it's REALLY hard to get a spell off, then you want it to be equally spectacular if it actually works.
Eh? I went over the bit I quoted with a microscope and I don't see that implication.
I always raise an eyebrow when people hold up AD&D as an example of game balance, ignoring spells like Polymorph Other, Shapechange, Gate, Polymorph Any Object, etc. which were just as broken (or maybe more so!) than their 3.5 counterparts.
Eh? I went over the bit I quoted with a microscope and I don't see that implication.
If a spell actually makes a turnip into a full-size purple worm, that's pretty damn impressive. I for one would be willing to face an enormous chance of spell failure and/or disruption, in order to potentially pull off an effect like that.
It reminded me of a 1e game, in which we used polymorph any object to transform an enemy's weapon into an angry asp with lethal venom. We knew the odds of getting off a spell with casting time 8 were woefully low, but we tried anyway because of the potential payoff if it worked.
|
Man more than anything I want there to be powerful spells, even instant death effects with no saves, that take multiple rounds to cast. And I learned to play with 3.5, I hate how every spell is either a standard action or 1 round or not a combat timed spell. I have no issue with an instant death effect with a save taking 3 rounds to cast with potential to lose the spell if you're hit while casting.
|
|
Hogarth -- I think that's exactly what Derek is trying to say is well -- maybe we should nerf the casting itself, rather than the spells? If it's REALLY hard to get a spell off, then you want it to be equally spectacular if it actually works.Eh? I went over the bit I quoted with a microscope and I don't see that implication.
I always raise an eyebrow when people hold up AD&D as an example of game balance, ignoring spells like Polymorph Other, Shapechange, Gate, Polymorph Any Object, etc. which were just as broken (or maybe more so!) than their 3.5 counterparts.
"Balance" is a code word. Not a positive one IMO. I don't give a hoot about "balance" any more than I give a hoot about anyone who feels entitled to anything.
Mages give up a lot to be able to bend and shape reality. I'm sorry, but using arcane power is supposed to be more spectacular than swinging a sword. The old AD&D downside to wielding massive amounts of power (and not for "balance" reasons, but for verisimilitude) was how much the magic user needed to concentrate on the precise wording and gestures necessary for using that power. Any distraction, however slight, ruined the precision of the casting and ruined the spell.
Like Kirth said, the chances of turning that turnip into a purple worm, considering all of the variables of combat, were slim, but, damn, if the wizzbang could pull it off (and in 1e, he really DID need someone watching his 6, 12, and all the other places to do so) he deserved to do spectacular things.
In 3.x, casting was so easy, even in the middle of the chaos that is combat, that, sure, maybe wizards shouldn't get to move mountains. Maybe spell nerfs are justified.
But, personally, I'd rather have casting be much harder, and much more spectacular when it does work, "balance" be damned...
I always raise an eyebrow when people hold up AD&D as an example of game balance, ignoring spells like Polymorph Other, Shapechange, Gate, Polymorph Any Object, etc. which were just as broken (or maybe more so!) than their 3.5 counterparts.
It's a matter of preference; do you like long, sloggy fights at high levels, or do you prefer rocket launcher tag? My personal preference is strongly towards the latter. I like the idea that if I get off my Spell of Ultimate Doom, the fight ends instantly -- but if I fail, I'm sword fodder within an 18th of a second.
I always raise an eyebrow when people hold up AD&D as an example of game balance, ignoring spells like Polymorph Other, Shapechange, Gate, Polymorph Any Object, etc. which were just as broken (or maybe more so!) than their 3.5 counterparts.It's a matter of preference; do you like long, sloggy fights at high levels, or do you prefer rocket launcher tag? My personal preference is strongly towards the latter. I like the idea that if I get off my Spell of Ultimate Doom, the fight ends instantly -- but if I fail, I'm sword fodder within an 18th of a second.
I hate to say it but 1e has another huge edge over 3.x/Pathfinder for me as well, leveling speed. In 1e when you are casting those level 7-9 spells you have been around a really long time, fought countless foes, travelled to all kinds of exotic lands (maybe even off plane a few times) and are likely to have a reputation and list of contacts all over the map. In 3.0 you might be level 17 and famous in one city and a few outlying towns only....
However clearly in 1e they meant for high level fights to end fast even between non-casters. The damage potentional of level 18 fighters in 1e is brutal, but they stopped increasing hitpoints in any significate manner since level 9.
I hate to say it but 1e has another huge edge over 3.x/Pathfinder for me as well, leveling speed. In 1e when you are casting those level 7-9 spells you have been around a really long time, fought countless foes, travelled to all kinds of exotic lands (maybe even off plane a few times) and are likely to have a reputation and list of contacts all over the map. In 3.0 you might be level 17 and famous in one city and a few outlying towns only....
However clearly in 1e they meant for high level fights to end fast even between non-casters. The damage potentional of level 18 fighters in 1e seems low when thinking in terms of 3e hit point totals, but was actally quite brutal, because they stopped increasing hit points in any significate manner after level 9.
Full agreement from me on both counts (although the stuffy grammarian in me would amend your quote as shown).
Really good points -- thanks!
|
I always raise an eyebrow when people hold up AD&D as an example of game balance, ignoring spells like Polymorph Other, Shapechange, Gate, Polymorph Any Object, etc. which were just as broken (or maybe more so!) than their 3.5 counterparts.It's a matter of preference; do you like long, sloggy fights at high levels, or do you prefer rocket launcher tag? My personal preference is strongly towards the latter. I like the idea that if I get off my Spell of Ultimate Doom, the fight ends instantly -- but if I fail, I'm sword fodder within an 18th of a second.
Full agreement as well. I hate to sound like a broken record when it comes to casters, but I reiterate: casting time and down-sides.
I don't see myself running too many games using Pathfinder spells. I like death magic to kill and polymorph to, well, poly-morph.
I see myself using a 3.0 spell-list with increased casting times, difficult concentration, and severe downsides for many spells. I may get rid of XP penalties, though.
|
|
It sounds like a low level campaign you have going.... Consider that low levels are kinda like investing for a wizard... paying dues for all the nastiness they are at later levels. Playing a low level wizard requires a bit of humility and sucking up or manipulating those big dumb fighters into buying you the time you need. If you dont have an investment mentality a wizard at low levels is prolly not a good choice. Maybe start him at a higher level if DM allows. Or maybe try 4th edition... I play it once a week and find it fun in a more casual kinda game.
When a wizard takes down a group of raging orcs with a well-placed colour spray the fighter is usually pretty grateful.
and why should I have to spend 2-4 rounds before i can do anything to contribute? name any other class that is required to sit on thier A** for half the fight before they can participate? This leads to two problems. The character is ineffectual for most of the fight, and then the character isn't much use if theres a second fight later on. So to use your perspective the wizard is a one trick pony.
Sword and board fighter versus archers up a 100ft murderhole. Not a fun battle for the fighter, who basically repeats "I take cover" for 10 rounds, or "I deal 1d8 (+Str if rich and smart) damage with my longbow". By the time a melee character can become a half-decent archer, the wizard is whipping off 5x the damage from 5x the range.
And then there's the fight when the enemy sorcerer casts hold person until the fighter fails his save and then has his friends wail on him with coup de grace. That's a good one.
How about the barbarian that rages and then is stuck on the other side of a collapsed bridge? Or when the rogue has any target further than 30ft away? Or when the paladin uses his single smite attack and the wizard kills his target with an area effect spell? Or when the monk fights anything but a board?
It sounds like a low level campaign you have going.... Consider that low levels are kinda like investing for a wizard... paying dues for all the nastiness they are at later levels.
Complete and total disagreement -- because you've got to flip it around and look at the other side of things as well.
Starting weak, and working towards becoming powerful, is a fun model for everyone. That's why you start at 1st level. EVERYONE should experience this feeling as they gain levels, not just certain classes.
Starting OK, and working towards being totally outclassed, isn't fun for anyone. That's what fighters do in 3.5, though: they start out essential bodyguards, and later on end up being glorified caddies. Who wants to have that type of career progression to look forward to? Why rig the game so that certain players are anxious for the party to NOT gain levels? That makes no sense to me.
I always raise an eyebrow when people hold up AD&D as an example of game balance, ignoring spells like Polymorph Other, Shapechange, Gate, Polymorph Any Object, etc. which were just as broken (or maybe more so!) than their 3.5 counterparts.It's a matter of preference; do you like long, sloggy fights at high levels, or do you prefer rocket launcher tag? My personal preference is strongly towards the latter. I like the idea that if I get off my Spell of Ultimate Doom, the fight ends instantly -- but if I fail, I'm sword fodder within an 18th of a second.
I think you're overestimating the AD&D fighter's "rocket launcher", though, unless you're talking about Belts of Giant Strength and +5 swords (in which case the equipment is really the rocket launcher, not the fighter).
I'll tell you what -- I'm willing to play out a battle, high-level AD&D fighter (with his 1st- and 2nd-level followers) vs. magic-user (with Enchant an Item, Contingency, Simulacrum, Animate Dead, Polymorph Other and Polymorph Any Object) any time. Sound fair? :-)
I'll tell you what -- I'm willing to play out a battle, high-level AD&D fighter (with his 1st- and 2nd-level followers) vs. magic-user (with Enchant an Item, Contingency, Simulacrum, Animate Dead, Polymorph Other and Polymorph Any Object) any time. Sound fair? :-)
Sure, as long as we're using 1st edition, and they're built on equivalent XP, not equivalent Level. A Fighter in 1st should be a level or two ahead at most XP totals, so that might make a considerable difference.
Oh, and don't forget to roll against your "Chance to know each spell" for each spell level.
(Though, honestly, I'd still bet on the wizard, I'm just saying, if we're going old school, lets go way old.)
[I'll tell you what -- I'm willing to play out a battle, high-level AD&D fighter (with his 1st- and 2nd-level followers) vs. magic-user (with Enchant an Item, Contingency, Simulacrum, Animate Dead, Polymorph Other and Polymorph Any Object) any time. Sound fair? :-)
Depends on your definition of "fair." Say we run that contest 100 times. In 1e, maybe I kill the simulacrum, make all my saving throws vs. polymorph moving in, win initiative, and cleave you in half ten times out of a hundred. Yeah, I lose 90% of the time, but I'm sure going to remember that one time!
In 3.5, we could easily go all 100 times and I'd never get close; maybe 1 time in 10,000 I might make every save known to man, correctly guess which image is you every time, have you roll a "1" on every check, and I might last a couple of rounds before you knock me off. Maybe 1 time in 10,000,000 I might hit the lottery and win, but I doubt it.
The outcome isn't necessarily binary (win 100% vs. lose 100%); rather, it's one of "small chance" vs. "no chance at all." Which still kind of bugs me -- if I were going to design a game from the ground up, everyone would have equal chances for equal XP and equal playing skill, and our outcome would be 50/50 every match unless one of us made a stupid mistake.
]Depends on your definition of "fair." Say we run that contest 100 times. In 1e, maybe I kill the simulacrum, make all my saving throws vs. polymorph moving in, win initiative, and cleave you in half ten times out of a hundred.
Or I'm using Project Image and I wasn't even there in the first place.
Or I'm using a Ring of Invisibility that I crafted myself and you can't find me.
Or there are a bunch of skeletons and zombies in the way and you can't get to me without going through them first.
Or etc.
I'm sure you can come up with a dozen other tedious ways that an AD&D wizard can completely dominate an AD&D fighter, if you take a few minutes to think about it. It's not really an interesting fight.
Sorry for the off-topic side-tracking, folks.
|
|
]Depends on your definition of "fair." Say we run that contest 100 times. In 1e, maybe I kill the simulacrum, make all my saving throws vs. polymorph moving in, win initiative, and cleave you in half ten times out of a hundred.** spoiler omitted **
Sorry for the off-topic side-tracking, folks.
Yep, and there are just as many tedious ways for the fighter to win as well in 1e.
In 3x it goes like this:
Wizard: "I attack his will save"
Fighter: "I die".
In 1e, the magic user pretty much had to go with evocation and other direct damage spells after the fighter hit, say 15th level, as the fighter wasn't failing jack, saving throw wise (that ring/cloak of protection added to saves, and there was no "auto-fail" on a 1 in 1e). Also, the wizard had better have cast his scry/wizard eye or something to let him know the fighter was coming, or he'd never get a spell off (you could hold back some attacks and charge twice in a round if necessary).
Contingency teleport? Just prolonging the fight, not winning it. Projected image? Usually only works if the magic user has a chance to cast BEFORE the fighter knows he's there. Invisibility ring? The fighter might have one too.
In 1e, magic users generally only won if they got to go first, and the fighter didn't have his bow ready. Casting times were pretty long on those high level spells. Can't say that enough. Another reason why 3x becomes wizard/cleric land with fighter caddies. The move/standard action thing royally screws fighters.
Yeah, the magic user would win more often than not in 1e (i'd say 3 of 5, not the 1 in 10 Kirth assumes), but in 3x, the wizard wins 99/100, and the 1/100 is only with some really good rolling on the fighter's part.
Yep, and there are just as many tedious ways for the fighter to win as well in 1e.
No, there's just one: "Wizard stands there like a moron while fighter wails on him."
Not surprisingly, that works almost as well in 3.5, too (i.e. not very).
|
|
Yep, and there are just as many tedious ways for the fighter to win as well in 1e.No, there's just one: "Wizard stands there like a moron while fighter wails on him."
Not surprisingly, that works almost as well in 3.5, too (i.e. not very).
It works much better in 1e, every time the fighter connects, the wizard loses a spell. No concentration checks in 1e, no "I won initiative, my spell goes off before anyone acts" stuff. And the wizard DOES have to "just stand there" or no spell going off.
Like I said, the only way a wizard in 1e wins automatically is if they know the encounter is about to happen and they have time to cast that project image or greater invisibility.
If the wizard is surprised, fails initiative and/or casts something over two segments, the fighter can pretty well keep him in check.
You know, unless the fighter is solo for some reason and the wizard has a posse...
Me thinks a lot of people didn't play with casting times if 1e wizards were that good in their games...
|
|
Me thinks a lot of people didn't play with casting times if 1e wizards were that good in their games...I know weapon speeds were usually one of the first things dropped. Perhaps some dropped casting times with them.
Weapon speeds only came up in certain circumstances anyway, they weren't a constant, but casting times were vital to the system. Drop casting times and yeah, magic users were brutal in 1e.
Yep, and there are just as many tedious ways for the fighter to win as well in 1e.No, there's just one: "Wizard stands there like a moron while fighter wails on him."
Not surprisingly, that works almost as well in 3.5, too (i.e. not very).
It works much better in 1e, every time the fighter connects, the wizard loses a spell. No concentration checks in 1e, no "I won initiative, my spell goes off before anyone acts" stuff. And the wizard DOES have to "just stand there" or no spell going off.
Like I said, the only way a wizard in 1e wins automatically is if they know the encounter is about to happen and they have time to cast that project image or greater invisibility.
If the wizard is surprised, fails initiative and/or casts something over two segments, the fighter can pretty well keep him in check.
You know, unless the fighter is solo for some reason and the wizard has a posse...
Me thinks a lot of people didn't play with casting times if 1e wizards were that good in their games...
Don't forget weapon speed, and those calculations. Basically it means that they roll initiative, and if the wizard casts anything other than a first level spell, the fighter *will* get to him first. Since you have to declare a spell before initiative is rolled. . .
People are forgetting *lots* about 1st edition AD&D. The fighter can move 9", a lot more if he charges. If the wizard casts, he can't move at all. The fighter always gets all his attacks in his routine. Also, he does have very good saves.
But if the wizard can find someone to stand between him and the fighter for just one round, it's game over for the fighter.
-Campbell
(In 1e, spells are declared before initiative. a d6 for each side is rolled, high roll goes first. If a wizard is casing a spell, and they are being attacked by a fighter with a weapon, and I quote. . .
"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."
I.e. Long sword of speed factor 5 - the Initiative roll(1-5, a six would be simultaneous at worst). If the absolute value of that number is less than the spell time then the sword wielder strikes first.
Long sword (5 weapon speed) vs. fireball (3 segment casting time).
Assume the wizard always wins initiative with a six.
Fighter rolls a 1.
(1-5 == -4) (|-4| == 4) (4>3) Fighter loses spell goes off first.
Fighter rolls a 2.
(2-5 == -3) (|-3| == 3) (3 == 3) Fighter hits wizard simultaneous.
Fighter rolls a 3-6.
Fighter wins.
So even if he loses initiative, in 1e, he still beats all but the fastest spells.
Me thinks a lot of people didn't play with casting times if 1e wizards were that good in their games...
I have the opposite point of view -- I suspect that your DM was being a softy if you were playing at high levels and wizards were regularly losing to fighters. (E.g. no precasting spells like Simulacrum, Polymorph Other, Contingency and Symbol of Stunning, no using cleverly worded Wishes or Limited Wishes, etc.) Not that there's anything wrong with that; it's no fun to get pounded on with no hope of winning!
|
|
If a fighter is just fighting a wizard, he'd probably go for the short sword or dagger anyway. By the levels where magic users are REALLY dangerous, a fighter would have gauntlets of ogre strength at a minimum, and probably a girdle of giant strength of some sort. 1d4 v 1d8 at that point is meaningless to damage output, and speed is everything.
But then, 1e wasn't a "I have a sword six times larger than my whole body", monkey grip, queso extraordinaire game where bigger was always better...
|
|
Me thinks a lot of people didn't play with casting times if 1e wizards were that good in their games...I have the opposite point of view -- I suspect that your DM was being a softy if you were playing at high levels and wizards were losing to fighters. (E.g. no precasting spells like Contingency and Symbol of Stunning, no using cleverly worded Wishes or Limited Wishes, etc.)
At low to mid levels, it's a different case of course.
Again, I assumed we were talking about a fighter and wizard dropped into an arena, both rounding a corner (a la the 1e DMG example), or maybe getting into a fight in a bar or something, not a wizard scrying and prepping.
I already stated if the wizard had time to prep for the fight, the fighter was probably hosed...
Me thinks a lot of people didn't play with casting times if 1e wizards were that good in their games...I have the opposite point of view -- I suspect that your DM was being a softy if you were playing at high levels and wizards were losing to fighters. (E.g. no precasting spells like Contingency and Symbol of Stunning, no using cleverly worded Wishes or Limited Wishes, etc.)
At low to mid levels, it's a different case of course.
Again, I assumed we were talking about a fighter and wizard dropped into an arena, both rounding a corner (a la the 1e DMG example), or maybe getting into a fight in a bar or something, not a wizard scrying and prepping.
I already stated if the wizard had time to prep for the fight, the fighter was probably hosed...
Based on your comments Houstonderek, You're welcome at my table anytime. I'm assuming you are in the Houston area? If you ever make it to northwest Arkansas, you should PM me for some 1e goodness. :-)
As far as relevant comments to the thread go -- I think most discussions here regarding concentration would be much improved if everyone would re-read the 1e PHB and DMG, and play two or three sessions with the rules from those books to see how the glass cannon quarterbacking wizard was envisioned. It would be amazing how many of these arguments would resolve themselves.
The trade off in losing some spells is worth the power of what you get.
One of the best guides to game design I've ever read is the DMG.
Hate to point this out, but I'm afraid you either misread the 1st edition rules on initiative, weapon speeds, and cast times or had a bad source for the rules text. The exact use of weapon speeds was somewhat vague in the core DMG and PHB for 1st edition, according to both books weapon speed factor didn't affect your initiative, and it wasn't clear exactly what they did affect. Speed factors weren't expanded to affect initiative until 2nd edition.
"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."
I'm unable to find this exact quote in my copy of either the PHB or the DMG. If you could provide a page number and which book it is found in it would be a huge help. The initiative rules I do have (directly from the 79 print run of 1st edition) are much simpler.
Each round (1 minute) is divided into 10 segments of 6 seconds each, each party is essentially rolling for which segment of the round that the opposing group will be able to act upon. So the winning side is the side that rolls higher, forcing their opponents to act later. Spells begin casting on the segment your side acts in, and have a casting time that usually varies from 1 segment to 1 round, depending on spell level (usually). Melee attacks happen on the segment your party acts (except for characters who have multiple attack routines per round, they attack once on their party's segment, and once at the end of the round, or alternate if both sides have multiple attack routines per round).
So if you wanted to cast Confusion (a 4 segment casting time) and your side went on segment 5, your spell would go off on segment 9. Anyone acting between segments 5 and 9 could interrupt you, and anyone acting on segments 1 through 4 could wait until they had seen you begin casting, then take their own action, again, to interrupt you.
Because of just how painfully unfair this was to casters (especially if one side had surprise, during surprise segments melee types could take their entire normal attack routine each segment, while casters still cast at the usual rate), a lot of DMs used the mostly unexplained speed factor on the weapons table in a similar way to casting times, delaying your attacks for speed factor in segments each round.
EDIT: Not sure what happened there, but the post was extremely borked, had to go back and clean up quite a bit of extraneous text that got clipped onto the end.
Based on your comments Houstonderek, You're welcome at my table anytime. I'm assuming you are in the Houston area? If you ever make it to northwest Arkansas, you should PM me for some 1e goodness. :-)
Northwest Arkansas? You don't happen to live in Fayetteville do you?
Hate to point this out, but I'm afraid you either misread the 1st edition rules on initiative, weapon speeds, and cast times or had a bad source for the rules text. The exact use of weapon speeds was somewhat vague in the core DMG and PHB for 1st edition, according to both books weapon speed factor didn't affect your initiative, and it wasn't clear exactly what they did affect. Speed factors weren't expanded to affect initiative until 2nd edition.
"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."I'm unable to find this exact quote in my copy of either the PHB or the DMG. If you could provide a page number and which book it is found in it would be a huge help. The initiative rules I do have (directly from the 79 print run of 1st edition) are much simpler.
Each round (1 minute) is divided into 10 segments of 6 seconds each, each party is essentially rolling for which segment of the round that the opposing group will be able to act upon. So the winning side is the side that rolls higher, forcing their opponents to act later. Spells begin casting on the segment your side acts in, and have a casting time that usually varies from 1 segment to 1 round, depending on spell level (usually). Melee attacks happen on the segment your party acts (except for characters who have multiple attack routines per round, they attack once on their party's segment, and once at the end of the round, or alternate if both sides have multiple attack routines per round).
So if you wanted to cast Confusion (a 4 segment casting time) and your side went on segment 5, your spell would go off on segment 9. Anyone acting between segments 5 and 9 could interrupt you, and anyone acting on segments 1 through 4 could wait until they had seen you begin casting, then...
Yes I do live in Fayetteville.
That quote was a direct quote from the 1st Edtion AD&D Dungeon Masters Guide with the man in the green robe opening the golden door with piles of treasure behind him. It was printed in 1979The quote (and example) is from page 66 and 67 under the heading "Strike Blows" and the subheading "Weapon Speed Factor:" (imagine that)
The relevant text is take from the 'Other weapon Factor Determinats' below that and carries across the page shift.
I've recently posted *another* quote from the 1e DMG regarding initiative. It *is* true that speed factors don't affect initiative. I am not saying that they do - initiative decides which team moves first. *HOWEVER* in the event of a charge, a spellcaster facing a fighter using a weapon, or a selection of other situations, speed factor + the initiative roll is used to determine the outcome of these special combat situations.
Psionic combat is on page 79 of my printing. The initiative section (on pages 62 of my 1st Edition DMG makes no mention of 10 six second segments. I am sure this is a 2nd edition change - you roll a d6 for initiative, and all references to segments refer to them as 6 different 10 second intervals (not the other way around as was the case in 2e).
The initiative section also mentions that the winner of the d6 roll 'possesses the initiative' but that this does not necessarily mean they move first, and then refers to the special case text.
Are you sure you're looking at a book written by Gary Gygax, and not one written by 'ole Zeb?
The cover of the book I'm reading right in front of me
The cover of the first printing of the book I'm reading right in front of me
Are we on the same page yet? ;-p
-Campbell
(You local to the area?)
Hate to point this out, but I'm afraid you either misread the 1st edition rules on initiative, weapon speeds, and cast times or had a bad source for the rules text....
I checked my copy of the first printing and it indeed has the same rules with similar text on the same page in the same place.
I also rechecked the 2nd edition PHB/DMG and they do roll a d10 for initiative.
-Campbell
|
|
That quote was a direct quote from the 1st Edtion AD&D Dungeon Masters Guide with the man in the green robe opening the golden door with piles of treasure behind him. It was printed in 1979
Actually, if it were printed in 1979, it would have the efreet holding the blonde on the cover with the City of Brass on the back cover. Yours was printed starting in '83. The copyright is from '79. The text is identical, though.
:)
That quote was a direct quote from the 1st Edtion AD&D Dungeon Masters Guide with the man in the green robe opening the golden door with piles of treasure behind him. It was printed in 1979
The quote (and example) is from page 66 and 67 under the heading "Strike Blows" and the subheading "Weapon Speed Factor:"
The relevant text is take from the 'Other weapon Factor Determinats' below that and carries across the page shift.
Same book here, and thanks, I was looking on pages 62 and 65, under Initiative and Spell Casting in Melee, and missed the speed factor section (for some reason when I saw Turning Undead, I thought it was the start of the next section, too much coffee, too little sleep.) This is why I asked what page and book, just in case I was just missing it, it's been years since I ran anything in 1st edition. No reason to be snarky (and apologies if I came across that way).
I've recently posted *another* quote from the 1e DMG regarding initiative. It *is* true that speed factors don't affect initiative. I am not saying that they do - initiative decides which team moves first. *HOWEVER* in the event of a charge, a spellcaster facing a fighter using a weapon, or a selection of other situations, speed factor + the initiative roll is used to determine the outcome of these special combat situations.
Psionic combat is on page 79 of my printing. The initiative section (on pages 62 of my 1st Edition DMG makes no mention of 10 six second segments. I am sure this is a 2nd edition change - you roll a d6 for initiative, and all references to segments refer to them as 6 different 10 second intervals (not the other way around as was the case in 2e).
Heh, Now on this at least I've got you. Page 43 of the PHB (the first page of spell explanations, opposite the end of the spell lists for magic users), Casting Time:
"Casting Time shows the number of melee rounds, or segments of a melee round, required to cast a spell. Remember that there are 10 segments to a round, 10 melee rounds to a turn. Some spells require additional time and preparation."
I'm fairly certain there were other mentions of Segment duration, but that's the one that springs to mind, (And thus was easiest for me to look up)
The initiative section also mentions that the winner of the d6 roll 'possesses the initiative' but that this does not necessarily mean they move first, and then refers to the special case text.
Are you sure you're looking at a book written by Gary Gygax, and not one written by 'ole Zeb?
...
Are we on the same page yet? ;-p
Yup, was just a bit foggy on that, since even when I played 1st, speed factor almost never came up (and re-reading that, I can see why).
(You local to the area?)
Yeah, I'm not actually in Fayetteville, but I live just a bit outside it.
Actually, if it were printed in 1979, it would have the efreet holding the blonde on the cover with the City of Brass on the back cover. Yours was printed starting in '83. The copyright is from '79. The text is identical, though.
Heh, I've got the same one, and I knew the difference, I just hoped no one asked and called me on it. (should have known better)
It just sounds so much more authoritative as "first printing" and "79 edition"
You get into the 80's and everyone rolls their eyes imagining leg warmers and parachute pants.
EDIT: Looking back over it, I love that we weren't really arguing at all as to whether or not casters were screwed over in melee in 1st, just arguing about the degree of screwing involved.