dcollins
Explorer
It's occurred to me to ask if anyone fully understands the intent of the fine-print parts of the 1st Ed. AD&D initiative system. I have half a mind to ask Col. Pladoh, but he seems to have not much time for rules questions.
I'm also thinking it would be great if we could skip all the "I never used it" or "1st Ed. sure sucked" comments in this thread.
To recap, using the 1st Ed. DMG as a source let's acknowledge that:
- Spellcasters announce spells for the round prior to initiative rolls (p. 65).
- In general, actions go first to the high-rolling party, then the low-rolling party, each on d6. (p. 62)
- In ties, if both parties are using weapons, initiative is determined by lowest speed factor first (p. 66)
Now, the problem areas are how spells interact with this system.
PROBLEM 1> "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.)" (p. 65)
So, we have a rule for when attacks land on spellcasters. But, when does the spell itself start, finish, and be eligible for disruption? (It seems like this mechanic would be suitable if all spells were started on segment zero, and finished on segment X of their casting time. However, further up on the page it says that spells' "commencement is dictated by initiative determination", which sounds like spells should start on a given initiative roll. But that makes no sense, because then it would be advantageous to lose initiative and start your spells after enemy attacks had already occurred.)
And, does this mean that all attacks from both sides on spellcasters occur in the same segment -- according to whatever the winner rolled for initiative? (It seems counterintuitive, but otherwise there would be no reason to mention "or on their own side's initiative die", because it would always be on the opponent's roll.)
PROBLEM 2> An additional system is presented for the case when spellcasters are fighting an opponent with a melee weapon. In this system, if the magic-user wins initiative, the first actor is determined by comparing lowest [casting time] versus [abs(weapon speed factor - weaponeer's initiative roll)]. If the initiative is tied, the same camparison is made, but with no subtraction to the weapon speed factor.
So, what happens when the spellcaster loses initiative -- does the melee attack then automatically come before the spell?
Is it true, then, that sometimes it's advantageous for the spellcaster for their opponent to roll higher rather than lower? (Consider the case where a magic-user launches hold person - [casting time 3] against a swordsman [weapon speed 5], and rolls initiative 4. If the swordsman rolls a 3, he wins [5-3 = 2, less than casting time]; but if the swordsman rolls 4, he loses [in a tie, speed factor not subtracted, so 5 loses to 3].)
Regardless if anyone actually used the full system -- did anyone understand the intent of these pieces related to spellcasting?
I'm also thinking it would be great if we could skip all the "I never used it" or "1st Ed. sure sucked" comments in this thread.
To recap, using the 1st Ed. DMG as a source let's acknowledge that:
- Spellcasters announce spells for the round prior to initiative rolls (p. 65).
- In general, actions go first to the high-rolling party, then the low-rolling party, each on d6. (p. 62)
- In ties, if both parties are using weapons, initiative is determined by lowest speed factor first (p. 66)
Now, the problem areas are how spells interact with this system.
PROBLEM 1> "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.)" (p. 65)
So, we have a rule for when attacks land on spellcasters. But, when does the spell itself start, finish, and be eligible for disruption? (It seems like this mechanic would be suitable if all spells were started on segment zero, and finished on segment X of their casting time. However, further up on the page it says that spells' "commencement is dictated by initiative determination", which sounds like spells should start on a given initiative roll. But that makes no sense, because then it would be advantageous to lose initiative and start your spells after enemy attacks had already occurred.)
And, does this mean that all attacks from both sides on spellcasters occur in the same segment -- according to whatever the winner rolled for initiative? (It seems counterintuitive, but otherwise there would be no reason to mention "or on their own side's initiative die", because it would always be on the opponent's roll.)
PROBLEM 2> An additional system is presented for the case when spellcasters are fighting an opponent with a melee weapon. In this system, if the magic-user wins initiative, the first actor is determined by comparing lowest [casting time] versus [abs(weapon speed factor - weaponeer's initiative roll)]. If the initiative is tied, the same camparison is made, but with no subtraction to the weapon speed factor.
So, what happens when the spellcaster loses initiative -- does the melee attack then automatically come before the spell?
Is it true, then, that sometimes it's advantageous for the spellcaster for their opponent to roll higher rather than lower? (Consider the case where a magic-user launches hold person - [casting time 3] against a swordsman [weapon speed 5], and rolls initiative 4. If the swordsman rolls a 3, he wins [5-3 = 2, less than casting time]; but if the swordsman rolls 4, he loses [in a tie, speed factor not subtracted, so 5 loses to 3].)
Regardless if anyone actually used the full system -- did anyone understand the intent of these pieces related to spellcasting?
Last edited:
