How did initiative rules make casters stronger in 3E?

[ProfessorCirno]

As others have said, 2e initiative rules meant that, when casting, if a rogue or other fast attacker gets up to you, kiss your spell goodbye. In my experience, even with weapon speeds involved, rogues were mage disrupting machines. With the 3e changes, quite frankly, regardless of your level, a mage is almost gurenteed to get their spell off.

 

[AllisterH]

As others have said, 2e initiative rules meant that, when casting, if a rogue or other fast attacker gets up to you, kiss your spell goodbye. In my experience, even with weapon speeds involved, rogues were mage disrupting machines. With the 3e changes, quite frankly, regardless of your level, a mage is almost gurenteed to get their spell off.

Keep in mind as well the following

a) magic weapons got their pluses affecting their initiative roll. Thus, a longsword while it may have been slow as a regular old longsword, a longsword + 2 had a weapon speed of 3 instead.

b) Clerics and other divine spellcasters had it worse. Generally, divine spells had a casting speed equal to spell level + 3.

 

[an_idol_mind]

2nd edition and earlier has longer casting times for higehr level spells, and spellcasters lost their spell if they took any damage prior to casting. Not only did 3rd edition change that by removing initiative modifiers for spells, but it also added the Concentration skill and defensive casting to make it possible for a spellcaster to cast in combat or after taking damage.

Some of the other consequences of the change are that magic missile isn't as big a mage killer. With its relatively high damage output and fast casting time, it was easy for a mage to sit back and spam magic missile to disrupt rival spellcasters. For non-spellcasters, a bag of darts could serve the same function.

I'd be interested in seeing how many people actually played the rules as written, though. I know that my group and several others in my area did away with weapon speeds and casting times well before 3rd edition came about. We also allowed spellcasters to make a Constitution check to keep their spells after a hit, which is similar to the Concentration skill of 3rd edition. I wonder how many others had already gone toward the 3rd edition route, or if I'm just an aberration as usual.

 

[Dausuul]

I think this is the right of it - it is easier to cast spells in 3E because the chance of disruption is/was minimized.

Exactly. I think the change MM is talking about is that 3E has "encapsulated" actions - you're frozen in time until the start of your turn, then you take a turn's worth of actions in a world of statues, then you go back to being a statue yourself and the next guy animates. Certain actions you take can animate the guy next to you long enough for him to make an opportunity attack, but you have control over that and can plan for it.

Pre-3E, initiative worked rather differently. As I recall, everybody declared what they were going to do, rolled initiative (every round!), then did it in initiative order. A caster who rolled poorly on initiative could be attacked by a monster with a better initiative roll, and if the monster rushed over and whacked the caster, the spell would fizzle without so much as a Concentration check.

I certainly would never advocate a return to the old system. The new one is far smoother and less cumbersome. But it did have a drastic effect on the balance between people whose actions could be disrupted and people whose actions couldn't be.

This seems a very one-sided view of 3E casters. Those of very high level - sure. But what about all the weak-arsed wizards that died before they got anywhere near this high-a-level? What about all the wizards that needed the other classes to help them do their thing while they were nowhere near throwing out save-or-die spells?

If they were playing it smart, they more than pulled their own weight. Save-or-die spells exist even at level 1. See sleep and color spray.

A recent thread on fantasy fiction, computer games and D&D provided an interesting landscape of what influenced player's expectations and I think perhaps illuminates the thinking that goes into casters and their place in the game. For those of us who got into D&D through fantasy fiction, of course wizards were powerful - and when they reached this power, who could stand against them? The pay off to play this style is obviously that they started weak and developed in power whereas other classes had a more linear development. However, for those who have gotten into D&D through computer games moreso than fantasy fiction, the lack of "balance" is obvious (be it being weaker at lower levels or more powerful at higher levels).

I came in via fantasy fiction, but I take the "balance" side and always have. Level is an arbitrary designation. There's no reason why the uber-powerful wizard of fantasy fiction has to be the same level as the fighters trying to stop him, and without that restriction, the whole comparison breaks down.

IMO, level should be a measure of character power. A character who is uber-powerful, for any reason, should be higher level. If you want a world with uber-powerful wizards but no comparably powerful fighters, then put a cap on the level the fighter can attain.

 

[ExploderWizard]

AD&D initiative was a bit complex with all the speed factors, segments, and variable casting times. It provided tactical options for spell and weapon use that has value on some level.

For example, when playing 3E, the wizards in our games rarely used wands for offensive magic since the actual spell would usually be more effective and have a higher DC than a stock wand spell. In our old AD&D games, offensive wands and staves were treasured and used all the time since activating the device couldn't be disrupted like a spell.

Basic D&D initiative kept things simple, fair, and even for all parties. A simple 1d6 roll for each side every round. A tie meant that all action happened simultaneously. All spells from both sides got cast and everyone got to act in the round even if they were killed or incapacitated "before" thier turn.

The simplicity and utter lack of methods to influence the tide of battle from round to round helped create an excitement and tension that's harder to capture in a turn based game. IMHO in addition to helping keep casters from dominating, random initiative helped battles feel more chaotic and less like a game of chess. When hit points begin to drop and the round is over, the tension involved with really needing to win initiative is very cool.

 

[Obryn]

Yep, I'm running a 1e game right now, and it makes a really big difference.

(Although I should note I'm using one of the many possible interpretations of initiative for spellcasters, and basically treating the spell's casting time as the caster's initiative, rather than adding the casting time to the d6 result.)

At any rate, in 1e - and to a lesser extent 2e - had frequently-used rules for interrupting spellcasters.

Not only could you do so fairly regularly, but there was no such thing as a Concentration skill or defensive casting. Simply put, the caster didn't have a chance to resist. If you lucked out and damaged Elminster with an arrow while he was in the middle of casting meteor swarm, the spell would simply be gone. (Which is why Elminster should have remembered his stoneskin....)

Somewhat mitigating this, there are no real rules against casting in melee other than a few notes from Gygax about the DM thinking long and hard about it.


Oh - a quick note about 1e vs. 2e, here...

Generally, it's easier to interrupt spells in 1e. Although there are 10 segments in a round, each side starts their actions on segment 1-6. If you are in melee combat, you act on that segment, unless you have multiple attacks with your weapon, in which case you (IIRC) get to act first and last every round. Your weapon speed factor does not change your initiative in any way, but gets funny on ties. If you are using missile weapons out of melee, you also get to go faster, subtracting your Reaction/Missile Attack bonus from your initiative point. If you are casting spells, depending on how you read the rules, you either add your spell's casting time to your initiative point, or finish casting on whatever segment matches the spell's casting time. Either way, spellcasters would generally go quite late in a round, and they get progressively later as their spells get more powerful.

In 2e, initiative rolls are on a d10, and both weapon speed factors and casting times influenced when you would act. Under this system, a longsword is as cumbersome as your average 5th-level magic-user (or 3rd-level cleric) spell. Combined with the fact that the initiative die now spans the entire length of a round, rather than just the first 6 portions of it, it is much harder to interrupt even the longest spells.

-O

 

[mearls]

And you're not saying that was a good way to balance spellcasters, just that it was a balancing factor that was so subtle no one noticed it being removed and thus couldn't compensate for it. Or does anyone think it would be good to bring this back as a house rule to get casters back in line?

It could work as a good way to balance spellcaster, or at least to show why fighters are always important, but it does break down.

In one AD&D campaign, through the luck of random treasure and goodies in published modules I had a magic user character with a 16 Dexterity, ring of protection +2, and (here's the key) bracers of AC 0.

With my mighty AC -4 at level 9, I no longer feared losing spells. The campaign lost steam at about that time, as it became clear the other PCs were along for the ride on Kelgore the Mystic's adventures. It was frustrating for everyone, so the PCs retired after trashing Zhentil Keep and we fired up a new campaign.

What it points to are what I think of as band aid mechanics. I don't like it when a class comes with a weakness (like a low AC) but the system provides plenty of ways around it.

It's a fine line. A wizard opting for better armor doesn't bug me as much as spells like mage armor. The former at least points to some interesting combinations and makes for some interesting character concepts, like a warrior-mage. The later just feels like an excuse to plug holes, especially at higher levels when you can afford to sacrifice a spell slot or a (theoretical) lower level utility spell.

I much prefer class-based abilities that let you mask a weakness for a moment. I really like the 4e version of shield because it lets you deflect one attack per encounter. You can handle the orc berserker for one round, but after that you need help.

 

[kitsune9]

I can't wait for Mearls to explain it -- he said at the end of this post:



What does he mean?

In 3.0 you could get off three spells per round (one from haste, one regular, and a quickened spell). If you were damage-dealing sorcerer/wizard, had an 18 Dex, and Improved Init, your base init is +8. Chances are, you'll go first, and just start nuking the field.

I had a wizard that I created to do just that. Awesome. Pure Awesome.

 

[Doug McCrae]

When I played 2e, we'd often start at higher than 1st level, 5th-7th or so and I remember *every* wizard would have Bracers of Armor. It seemed to be near universal among pre-gens in modules too. It used to really annoy me because I perceived that weakness as being an important part of both wizard flavour and also game balance.

 

[Chainsaw]

We never relied on any sort of strict treasure distribution (from a table or module) in our 2E games (DM had to use common sense), so game-breaking treasure wasn't really an issue. By the time our magic-users were getting Braces of AC 0, that was JUST good enough to keep them from getting splattered across a cave wall.

A magic-user never came across a set of bracers strong enough to compensate for his AC weakness (relative to the other players) unless it was a single player game, where the guy was effectively assuming ALL the roles at once and had to have better defense.