Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- individual adventure modules! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed to plug in to your game.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mannahnin" data-source="post: 9884074" data-attributes="member: 7026594">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.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).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.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.As for round length, I tend to like 10 seconds (a la B/X) or 6 (a la 3.0 and later). 10 feels a little more reasonable for some of the more active rounds, the option to speak a bit, etc.</blockquote>

Verification