I also need to say something about how combat works when you're declaring actions before the initiative roll, because it seems there was some confusion on this point. Here's an example how it works in my games (grossly simplified, but you'll get the picture):
There are four players, a fighter, a magic-user, an elf, and a dwarf. They encounter 5 orcs and a troll. One of the orcs is dressed up in fancy gear and hanging towards the back, and the players know this means it's a shaman. It all kicks off.
DM: Okay, it's combat, what are you going to do?
Fighter: I'm going to charge the orcs and attack them.
Magic-User: I'm going to cast an acid arrow at the troll.
Elf: I'm going to fire arrows at the shaman. (Knowing that it's a shaman and will likely be casting a spell.)
Dwarf: I'm going to try to get in front of the Magic-User and protect him from attack. (Knowing the magic-user is likely to be preparing a spell and wanting to make sure it goes off.)
Meanwhile, I decide that the orc shaman will start casting magic missile at the magic-user, and everybody else will attack the elf, wanting to kill their hated race enemy first. Everybody rolls initiative.
The order comes out as follows, fastest first: fighter, elf, orcs, dwarf, troll, magic-user, orc shaman.
The fighter charges forward into the mass of orcs. The elf's view to the shaman is slightly blocked so the player asks the DM if he can move a little to get a better angle. Because we're grown-ups and we can negotiate and the rules explicitly state that the decision about what happens is down to the people at the table, I agree. The elf moves a little and shoots the orc shaman, ruining his concentration. The orcs pile onto the fighter. The orc shaman would have cast his magic missile at the magic-user at this point, but can't because his spell has fizzled thanks to the elf. The dwarf player asks if he can change his action to attacking the orcs instead - I rule that he can't, because it's too different to his initially-stated action (in real terms, he's already started moving to block off the route of attack to the magic-user, and would be too flat-footed to suddenly change his momentum). The troll charges past the melee towards the elf. Finally, the magic-user casts his acid arrow at the troll.
From this, you can see, hopefully, two things: the idea that you can stop spells before they are cast adds a whole new tactical dimension to combat; and just because you're declaring actions before initiative it doesn't necessarily mean things are appreciably slower, more difficult to resolve, or less flexible. (There may be cases where it is so, but not enough to detract from the benefits gained.)
I am glad to see that one doesn't declare actions before rolling initiative in 1E; after reading your earlier post, I thought I must be growing senile, because I clearly remembered it working differently.
ReplyDeleteB/X has the declaration phase too. It is required for spell disruption and for the defensive movement options. IIRC, though, it got left out of the enumerated procedure. It only gets a couple of mentions in places you might not look for it. e.g. I believe it can be found in the text at the beginning of the Expert spell chapter.
ReplyDeleteI don’t think I’d ever played with it in AD&D and only learned about it upon coming back to classic D&D. I gave it a try and found it worked better than I expected, but I’m still not 100% sold on it.
One thing that I’m not clear on is whether the DM should declare the monsters’ actions and whether they should be declared before or after the PCs’ declarations. Or, to put it another way, when the players ask what the monsters are doing before declaring their characters’ actions, should the DM reveal the same kind of info as a declaration? And should the DM allow the PCs’ declarations to influence what the monsters do?
I’ve also considered making spells go off at the end of the round/beginning of the next round in order to have the possibility of spell disruption without the declaration phase.
Robert: One thing that I’m not clear on is whether the DM should declare the monsters’ actions and whether they should be declared before or after the PCs’ declarations. Or, to put it another way, when the players ask what the monsters are doing before declaring their characters’ actions, should the DM reveal the same kind of info as a declaration? And should the DM allow the PCs’ declarations to influence what the monsters do?
ReplyDeleteAt least in 2nd edition the DM is supposed to decide the monsters' actions before the players declare their actions. The way I run it is that I decide what the monsters will probably do (without saying so), then the players declare their actions, and then I tell the players what the monsters are doing. I make sure to keep myself honest, and it would be obvious if I was cheating anyway. Then we start resolution.
Unless you are seeing some passages that I am not--Lord knows there are countless ones that I am continually surprised to find to this day--I don't see it is as ambiguous at all that actions in a 1e round are determined after initiative. (I agree though not calling a spell beforehand is almost always piledrived out—and is a big deal.)
ReplyDeleteThe sequence on p. 61 puts the roll at step 3 and step 4 is pretty black-and-white "determine the results of whatever actions are decided upon by the party with initiative" and then step five flips to the other party. Both step four and five say decide and there is no mention of decisions in any of the steps before or during even the initiative check.
I see where you are coming from in defending this, but getting back to the designers aren't stupid point of yours I think they would have ruled out actions before initiative because it can lead to one big problem: what happens when a character's action is made moot or absurd by action in a round.
There was a common design problem in mini-wargame rules of the late 60s and 70s in that many of them had started to model simultaneous movement by requiring players to write orders before a turn. Having played with some of these rules you'd encounter maybe one out of eight times or so a highly unrealistic effect in the turn—a cohort of heavy infantry and a squadron of opposing cavalry would march right past each other with neither
I can't imagine that Gygax and the others having been major participants in that era of mini wargaming wouldn't have had that problem in mind when designing AD&D. Just my pet theory though.
All that said, your last two posts still have some appeal to me after three years of playing “D&D 0.75” AD&D hard-wired in a number of interesting tactical/resource choices and balances that get glossed over in our collective loosey-goosiness.
ckutalik: I think they would have ruled out actions before initiative because it can lead to one big problem: what happens when a character's action is made moot or absurd by action in a round.
ReplyDeleteGood comment, and you may be right, although I think this is where negotiation comes in. Sometimes a character's action is rendered moot or absurd, yes, but it can then be altered through interaction with the DM or just through DM judgement. Adult players will almost never have a problem with this.
One thing I've noticed using this system is that players become very cautious and prudent with the sort of actions they're declaring, so the problem lessens as they get used to the way it works. I also don't have a problem with them saying something like "I'll attack the orcs, but if there are none left I'll attack the troll" provided they're not being silly with it.
@Robert - I just checked in X, and yup, right there on X11, it talks about declaring spells before initiative. But I can't find a reference like that anywhere in B. In fact, I see this in the 'Example of Combat' on B28:
ReplyDelete"In the second round of combat, the party loses the initiative roll . . . The DM warns Silverleaf that if he wants to cast any spells this round, the hobgoblins will be able to attack him before he can do so. Silverleaf decides to get out a weapon."
So in B, Gygax, Arneson, and Moldvay are not that interested in action declarations before initiative, even though spell declaration was a feature in AD&D years before.
But by X, Cook and Marsh had decided to make spell declaration before initiative a standard - getting at least that part in line with AD&D. I can guess why. In loosing the initiative, Silverleaf knew that he shouldn't risk casting a spell. But loosing initiative shouldn't have given Silverleaf any advance knowledge of whether it would be safe to cast a spell. So spell declarations make sense.
Taking that thought all the way leads us to Mentzer and BECMI and declaring all INTENTIONS before initiatve. That's quite an evolution when you add in that the LBBs and Holmes didn't (from what I understand) have anything about action declaration in them at all.
I think it makes sense - but have never, ever used it. I think I will next time I DM and see what happens.
- Ark
In the games I’ve played in with the declarations phase, the “your action is no longer valid” has never been a problem. Either the PC effectively does nothing that round or the DM allows them to choose a different action. Sometimes with limits; sometimes not.
ReplyDeleteI think the variations both between editions and within an edition here indicate mainly that TSR never looked at this as a hard-and-fast kind of thing. Or a terribly important thing.
Also, I believe the Moldvay Basic and Cook/Marsh Expert were developed concurrently. Differences are less about one being later than the other than about one being the primary rules and the other being an introduction. Or just the fact that different people were working on them.
What my DM does in his (quasi) 1ed game is at the start of combat we roll initiative as a group and then either all of the PCs go first and do all of their actions or all of the monsters go first and do all their actions. There's been no chances for spell interrupting yet, but the DM says that that will come up when spells with longer casting times start to become prevalent (not sure on the details).
ReplyDeleteThis works fairly well, I like having side based initiative since it seems to make things a bit faster and it lets the players operate at a group better, but I agree with noisms that giving people a chance to disrupt spells is vital in D&D.
wasn't there even an edition of the rules where players were expected to write their actions down and then reveal them at the end of the declaration phase? Maybe I'm confusing it with a different game.
ReplyDeleteWFRP3 has an interesting alternative to this that I think is the exact opposite. Initiative results are assigned to the party, not the individuals, and any individual can take any slot in the initiative. So if your party rolled e.g. a 5,4,2 and a 1, then even though your dwarf rolled the 1, he can take the 5. This leads to some complex decision making, and also gives the GM some wicked spoiler abilities. As far as I know there is no declaration either, you judge your actions by the moment.
But in WFRP3 there is less magic, magic-users generally don't cast a spell every round, and as far as I can tell there is no risk of spell disruption anyway.
@Arkhein: "In loosing the initiative, Silverleaf knew that he shouldn't risk casting a spell. But loosing initiative shouldn't have given Silverleaf any advance knowledge of whether it would be safe to cast a spell."
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure that paragraph necessarily implies "risk" in casting the spell. Basic contains no rule about losing a spell by taking damage or failing a save; Basic simply disallows casting while "fighting" (B15). In absence of the additional rules in X, the DM's warning could simply be a reminder that Silverleaf simply may not have a chance to cast a spell because he may soon be "fighting" a charging hobgoblin.
Further, it's hard to give that paragraph much weight toward gaining understanding of Basic's literal written combat rules, because the DM allows Morgan to attack first even though she lost initiative. Also, there's the two odd mentions of the party being able to get out their weapons; not only is it mechanically irrelevant in B/X, but it also implies that the party is able to take some kinds of actions before or during their enemies' actions, even though the party lost initiative.
"This leads to some complex decision making, and also gives the GM some wicked spoiler abilities."
ReplyDeleteHow so? I'm not familiar with Warhammer, but would't people just choose the highest initiative in most cases? Or can people just swap around their initiative results?
David, the results are fixed: so you have a list of numbers rolled (e.g. 5,4, 1) that doesn't change. But the highest number acts first, and the party can slot anyone they want into that number. So one round, the Dwarf acts first; next round it might be the cleric. So initiative preserves the order of the actions (so e.g. if the monsters rolled a 3 then one of them gets to act third in combat; it's up to me which one).
ReplyDeleteA common use of this if you're lucky enough to have access to healing magic is to put the cleric in first in the round if one of the other party members looks like they're going to be killed by a successful attack.
This means that initiative no longer decides your fate in combat, but makes high-initiative characters useful to the whole group. I like it, but I think it's exactly the opposite of the declared-action type methods that Noisms is describing.
David: There's been no chances for spell interrupting yet, but the DM says that that will come up when spells with longer casting times start to become prevalent (not sure on the details).
ReplyDeleteSome more high-powered spells take an entire round or more to cast. But I'm not sure how many of them are important in combat.
The first post I've initiated on The Forge dealt with the same problems, yet with a different purpose: I was trying to design a system in which all actions would have been happening at the same time. It's called "Gaming Designs Without Initiative Order" and there's a lot of wisdom in the answers I've got there. Check it out.
ReplyDeleteThere's the Cadwallon system as well in which you check who declares his actions first, and then roll to check who acts first.
All considered, I think that declaring before involves a "soft" take on the declaration itself: one should be able to change one's mind according to what the monsters plan to do, for instance. Once everybody's satisfied, let the dice hit the table. That's the the "Free and Clear" system of The Shadow of Yesterday. It's maybe too much for old-school D&D, but at least, I think you should allow the players - and the monsters - to change slightly their mind before rolling.
Noisms: Time Stop is a 1 rounder, I think!
ReplyDeleteWow, that changes things! I like the idea that they will loose a round to possibly gain 2 or more, but that you can see what they are doing and pre-empt them. Proper risk/reward.
ReplyDelete