declaring actions

[El Mahdi]

deleted

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Ah, a special case to allow the weapon guy to have a better chance. This is pretty confusing and just further reminds me why I don't do initiative modifiers.

It sounds worse than it actually is, I think. The math isn't hard (adding/subtracting mostly single-digit numbers), and once you do it a few times it comes pretty naturally. Also, I only use it when the spellcaster is in melee and wins initiative (i.e. if the fighter wins initiative, his attack goes first). As you point out, the whole idea behind the rule is to make spellcasting in melee harder.

Also, I didn't see that in the DMG. Are you sure it's in those pages?

It's under "Other Weapon Factor Determinants," which starts at the end of pg 66 and continues onto pg 67. Sorry, I typo'd 67 to 77 in my ealier post.

 

[Nikosandros]

The "treat negative as positive part" is rather counter-intuitive though and it can lead to weird corner cases.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

The "treat negative as positive part" is rather counter-intuitive though…

Yeah, that's definitely the trickiest part. Once you've got that down, the rest is easy.

…and it can lead to weird corner cases.

If I remember correctly, the odd corner cases come up if you use the rule regardless of who won initiative (there were some threads on Dragonsfoot about that), but those were eliminated if the rule was only applied when the spellcaster won initiative.

(I don't remember, exactly; these days I use my OD&D combat sequence far more often than the AD&D approach.

 

[Nikosandros]

Yeah, that's definitely the trickiest part. Once you've got that down, the rest is easy.

Actually, I didn't mean counter-intuitive in the sense of it being difficult (taking the absolute value of a number is a trivial operation), but rather that it may lead to illogical situations.

If I remember correctly, the odd corner cases come up if you use the rule regardless of who won initiative (there were some threads on Dragonsfoot about that), but those were eliminated if the rule was only applied when the spellcaster won initiative.

I'll quote what I posted on DF 5 years ago.

[...] Yes, but consider the case of a very fast weapon, like a dagger (speed factor 2) vs. a fast spell (i.e. Magic Missile).

On a loosing roll of 2, the dagger goes first. 2-2 < 1

On a roll of 1, the action is simultaneous. 2-1 = 1

On any higher roll (which should be more favorable), the dagger strikes last. (i.e. abs(1-3) > 1).

This is not any better than having a short sword (speed factor 3), a hammer (4) or a longsword (5). In every case, you have 1 chance out of 6 of going first, you just shift the numbers...

If we now consider a spell with casting time 2, the situation is even worse!

The dagger has 3/6 chances of going fist (roll of 1,2,3), 1/6 of being simultaneous (roll of 4) and 1/6 of going last (roll of 5).

[I'm not considering 6, because you can't loose with a roll of 6, and in case of ties, I agree that the weapon will always prevail]

The dagger has the same results as an hammer. It's true that, in this case the longsword will do worse, but the short sword will actually be better! (2/6 chances of a tie, 3/6 of being faster, 0 of being slower).

(I don't remember, exactly; these days I use my OD&D combat sequence far more often than the AD&D approach.

Yes, your OD&D sequence is rather good. Currently I'm using a home brewed individual variant that borrows some ideas from Hackmaster 4th edition.