AD&D 1E Three Things that can't be Fixed in 1e AD&D

[Lanefan]

That's just the normal way things work. This is referring to a situation where the caster declares intent to cast spells while not in melee, and the monster (say a bugbear) within say 9" of the M-U but not yet in base-to-base contact declares intent to close with and strike the M-U.

Individual initiative solves this - if the Bugbear's init is higher than the initiative of when the caster's spell resolves, the caster is interrupted. If it's lower, the spell resolves before the Bugbear can get there.

I think 6 seconds work really well. One second like GURPS uses maybe also works but it is really fast and combat can get really crunchy when you lose all abstraction. But if you look at Sumo, Fencing, or HEMA six seconds is a lot of combat. My preference is for a typical combat to last 3-5 rounds, and well 30 seconds of combat is a lot of action.

Fair. My main problem with very short rounds is that it doesn't give enough in-game time for anything to happen elsewhere while the battle takes place. Very short rounds also play hell with movement outside of combat - the guards a few rooms down just don't have time to get their gear and get there, for example, in time to make any difference before the battle's over.

Provided things are moving halfway quickly at the table, I'm not that concerned whether a combat takes 2 rounds or 5 rounds or 20 rounds.

If I was revising everything in 1e AD&D I might to a 10 second round of 10 segments using d10 initiative similar to 2e but perhaps with individual initiative like 3e because "whole side goes first" proved problematic for me back in the day. Again, my complaint on 1e AD&D combat is often the initiative roll feels nearer to the end of combat than the beginning, and if the party wins often the fight is very much one sided.

Individual initiative is a non-negotiable for me now. Wouldn't do it any other way.

Yeah, that was my thought on adding casting times into 3e as well. I just never took the leap of having casting beginning on one segment but ending on another. Casters were already taken down several pegs by my house rules (no combat casting to avoid AoO for example) and it never felt really necessary.

If you whacked combat casting, this makes sense.

 

[Lanefan]

Well, the point with 1E's initiative system for casting in combat is to make it a risky gamble, and normally one that's not worth it unless you're using a magical device, which is quicker than a powerful spell. And to enable tactical choices re: using quicker spells over slower ones. It's not just to make it impossible.

Devices can't be interrupted.

Not just that situation; look at the quote from p66-67 again.

The spell is not automatically foiled just because there's a melee attacker there. It's foiled if that attacker goes before them and hits them (with them getting no Dex bonus to defense).

Which goes against the idea of melee being a whole round of attacks and parries with your to-hit roll merely representing the best attack. Here, if there's a melee attacker there and you've made yourself defenseless because you're casting a spell, to me it's automatic that the attacker is going to do enough to disrupt casting even if the caster doesn't take any actual hit-point damage, without regard to initiative order.

But with longer casting time spells (most of the higher level ones for M-Us and most spells for Clerics) and short to medium weapons, the attacker will almost always get that opportunity to attack before the M-U gets the spell off, even if the attacker lost initiative. This makes slower spells ones you want to make sure you're protected before you try to cast in a fight, and incentivizes you to rely on wands and quick ones (magic missiles, power words, etc.) with the shortest casting times if you do need to cast when you're in danger of being attacked.

Sure, no argument there. I just found it easier and simpler to say that attempts to cast while in melee will always fail.

As I recall 3.0 also had Full Round casting time spells, which started on the caster's initiative count and then finished casting on his next initiative, in the following round.

I believe you're right on this, but I'm going on memory from 20-25 years ago.

 

[Mannahnin]

My reading of B/X Basic (page B15 "Similarly, because the words and gestures must be repeated exactly, spells cannot be cast while performing any other action (such as walking or fighting)." was that you could not cast in melee, but in 1e I read the section in the 1e DMG spell casting in melee (page 65) as being that you could, but you have to be relatively motionless while casting and not use any dex bonus to AC and anything that interrupted your casting (successful attack, failed save, grapple) would disrupt the spell.

In the PH the relevant discussion seems to be on pages 100 and 104.

I've always read the key part of that B/X line as being "cannot be cast while performing any other action". So you can't make a missile attack or melee attack in the same round that you're casting (or move, or anything else). Not that casting in melee is impossible.

Cause Wounds spells would be literally impossible to use if casting in melee weren't allowed.

It's just a gamble on winning the initiative roll.

 

[Mannahnin]

Well, the point with 1E's initiative system for casting in combat is to make it a risky gamble, and normally one that's not worth it unless you're using a magical device, which is quicker than a powerful spell. And to enable tactical choices re: using quicker spells over slower ones. It's not just to make it impossible.

Devices can't be interrupted.

Yup. Short of killing or disabling the caster before he activates it, anyway. That's part of why they're so valuable, as Gary editorializes in the text. "Because spell casting will be so difficult, most magic-users and clerics will opt to use magical devices whenever possible in melee, if they are wise." (1E DMG p65)

Not just that situation; look at the quote from p66-67 again.

The spell is not automatically foiled just because there's a melee attacker there. It's foiled if that attacker goes before them and hits them (with them getting no Dex bonus to defense).

Which goes against the idea of melee being a whole round of attacks and parries with your to-hit roll merely representing the best attack. Here, if there's a melee attacker there and you've made yourself defenseless because you're casting a spell, to me it's automatic that the attacker is going to do enough to disrupt casting even if the caster doesn't take any actual hit-point damage, without regard to initiative order.

Eh. Even with the "whole round of multiple attacks and parries boils down to a best attack" abstraction rationale, initiative still matters. Even in the simplified initiative B/X uses, if the evil Cleric is in melee he can try to cast Cause Light Wounds and as long as he wins initiative, he gets that spell off.

But with longer casting time spells (most of the higher level ones for M-Us and most spells for Clerics) and short to medium weapons, the attacker will almost always get that opportunity to attack before the M-U gets the spell off, even if the attacker lost initiative. This makes slower spells ones you want to make sure you're protected before you try to cast in a fight, and incentivizes you to rely on wands and quick ones (magic missiles, power words, etc.) with the shortest casting times if you do need to cast when you're in danger of being attacked.

Sure, no argument there. I just found it easier and simpler to say that attempts to cast while in melee will always fail.

I get that. A lot of folks clearly take that approach. To me kind of the point of 1E is to allow for more complex possibilities, strategies, and options.

That's why the AD&D initiative systems remain a subject of fascination for me. Because they're the only ones which A) allow for spells to be interrupted at all, AND B) make it more complex than a coinflip initiative roll, doing things like incentivizing faster spells and devices. Casting times are basically irrelevant or at best matter only in rare edge cases in most other editions.

 

[fuindordm]

Cause Wounds spells would be literally impossible to use if casting in melee weren't allowed.

It's just a gamble on winning the initiative roll.

Good point, from that viewpoint giving the melee a free attack is a bit harsh. There are a handful of spells clearly intended to be cast in melee -- shocking grasp and burning hands come to mind.

 

[Voadam]

I've always read the key part of that B/X line as being "cannot be cast while performing any other action". So you can't make a missile attack or melee attack in the same round that you're casting (or move, or anything else). Not that casting in melee is impossible.

Cause Wounds spells would be literally impossible to use if casting in melee weren't allowed.

For a while I was thinking of it this way, that the rules made it an evil cleric out of combat spell for torturing (cause wounds) or cursing (cause disease, curse) prisoners

But recently I've been thinking of if it works sort of like 3e holding the charge, the first creature touched after casting it, so you cast it then next round go into melee combat.

It's just a gamble on winning the initiative roll.

Its interesting, B/X Basic only has the statement on cannot be cast while fighting. Nothing on losing initiative and taking damage disrupting a spell (which could happen when not in melee by taking an arrow).

Looking it up now however, B/X Expert has an explicit statement on it at X11.

CASTING RESTRICTIONS. The spell caster must be able to talk and use the proper hand motions to cast a spell. A spell-caster who is bound and gagged may not cast a spell. The caster can do nothing else in the round a spell is cast. The caster must inform the DM that a spell is being cast and which spell will be cast before the initiative dice are rolled. If the caster loses the initiative and takes damage or fails a saving throw, the spell is interrupted and lost. In addition, the caster must be able to see the creature or area the spell is to be cast on.

A rare case of a general rule applicable from first level being hidden in the later book.

So casting in melee is no more of a risk or harder than when being targeted at range.

Given the Expert rules quote I think your reading of the Basic quote is reasonable, that you can cast in melee just that is all you do that round.

 

[Mannahnin]

Looking it up now however, B/X Expert has an explicit statement on it at X11.

CASTING RESTRICTIONS. The spell caster must be able to talk and use the proper hand motions to cast a spell. A spell-caster who is bound and gagged may not cast a spell. The caster can do nothing else in the round a spell is cast. The caster must inform the DM that a spell is being cast and which spell will be cast before the initiative dice are rolled. If the caster loses the initiative and takes damage or fails a saving throw, the spell is interrupted and lost. In addition, the caster must be able to see the creature or area the spell is to be cast on.

A rare case of a general rule applicable from first level being hidden in the later book.

So casting in melee is no more of a risk or harder than when being targeted at range.

Given the Expert rules quote I think your reading of the Basic quote is reasonable, that you can cast in melee just that is all you do that round.

Yeah, I think it was a rare editorial oversight in 1981 Basic. Moldvay did an amazing job on it for the most part, including correcting the occasional oversight or lacuna from OD&D and AD&D (like how long Ghoul paralysis lasts, and allowing Cure Light Wounds to cure it), but there are still a few gaps here and there.

 

[Voadam]

Good point, from that viewpoint giving the melee a free attack is a bit harsh. There are a handful of spells clearly intended to be cast in melee -- shocking grasp and burning hands come to mind.

1e Burning Hands is so weak, it goes out 3' from the caster's hands and does 1 damage per level. Shocking grasp at least does 1d8+(1 per level) at touch range (about the same as BH).

Magic Missile is just so much better for a pure damage spell, an independently targetable 2-5 damage every odd level and done at a huge range.

 

[Mannahnin]

1e Burning Hands is so weak, it goes out 3' from the caster's hands and does 1 damage per level. Shocking grasp at least does 1d8+(1 per level) at touch range (about the same as BH).

Magic Missile is just so much better for a pure damage spell, an independently targetable 2-5 damage every odd level and done at a huge range.

Yeah, 1E Burning Hands is super limited in application; basically clearing a 120 degree arc adjacent to you of weak targets IF you're already mid level. Auto-hitting and allowing no save are nice, but the damage is just SO low. 2E buffed that to a d3 +2pts/caster level (capped at d3+20), but allows a save for half. So at least at level 1 it's got a chance of killing some stuff.

Shocking Grasp is single target for respectable damage even if you need to get into melee and roll to hit the target (which the spell description doesn't tell you, but the example of combat on DMG p71 does).

 

[Celebrim]

1e Burning Hands is so weak, it goes out 3' from the caster's hands and does 1 damage per level. Shocking grasp at least does 1d8+(1 per level) at touch range (about the same as BH).

Burning Hands is even pretty marginal in 3e when it goes out in a 10' arc and does 1d4 per level (save for half IIRC). The 3e version wouldn't be out of place in 1e. At low levels you prepared Sleep in 1e, then at higher levels you always prepared Magic Missile. I can't remember anyone ever preparing either Burning Hands or Shocking Grasp in 1e. You never wanted to be that close to anything.

Shocking Grasp was only a big deal in my 3e campaign because of the way touch attacks and feats work in my homebrew. You aren't considered armed delivering a touch attack in my homebrew so you normally would draw an attack of opportunity. But you can use a prepared staff or wand to deliver a touch attack without drawing an AoO, and you can also make the touch attack as part of the normal attack - so you can get both staff damage and the touch attack in the same round. Plus, I had a homebrew 'Elementalist' feat that buffed direct damage which was otherwise a pretty weak strategy in 3e. This let a 1st level M-U hit for 1d6+2d8+2 damage with Shocking Grasp, which was just a huge finisher, and do it from the second rank without having to get into swing range. None of that applies to trying to use Shocking Grasp in 1e, where you'd be just better off throwing darts or daggers and holding your spell for a situation where you can matter, and your only real option for that is Sleep.