Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 6349277" data-attributes="member: 29398">Absolutely.  We're agreeing, for a change. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Re: casting times...Well for one thing I despise cyclical initiative and will never use it in a game I run; but were I forced to use it then yes, the caster's init. would reset each round.  So, she could start a spell on 17, resolve on 11, then be ready to go again next time 17 rolls around.  The only time your initiative would change is if a spell takes a full round or longer to cast; you'd then be pushed down to the next available spot.  So, again the same example where she starts on 17 but as a full-round spell she doesn't resolve until 17 of next round, in this case her new-round action would try to start on a 16 - but wait, there's an Orc on 16 and the Pally's got 15, so she has to drop to 14 which becomes her new pegged initiative until-unless this happens again.As for the last bit you state, there's times when the casters need to back off and let the brawlers do their thing.  In fact, it's probably in the casters' best interests if all the enemies are engaged in melee, as their spells can be saved for later.Lan-"and I'll be one of the melee guys, and heaven help you if you fry my ass"-efan</blockquote>