View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Mon Oct 14, 2019 6:23 am



Reply to topic  [ 87 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Disrupting a spell 
Author Message
Lore Drake
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:00 am
Posts: 1003
Location: St. James, Missouri
Post Disrupting a spell
So the rules state that spells can be disrupted by combat, being hit, making saves, etc., but specifically states "spell taking more than 1 round to cast". That accounts for 98% of the spells. The spells taking longer, are spells you would never cast in combat like summon familiar.

So in order to disrupt a caster, I really need to have them announce they are casting prior to rolling initiative. That way if they end up in the line up first, they get the spell off. If not, they stand a chance of getting hit before completing the spell. I do not see any "instant" spells. I suppose this could also be done by starting the spell in one round and since it takes one round, finishing in the next round, which would mean that, the entire round would leave them vulnerable. I mean if not, quick casting (advantage) really has no value.

I have been letting CT 1 spells go off in the same round cast. I rarely disrupt players spells. D'oh!

How do you play it in your game? Do I have this right?


Wed Jan 07, 2015 11:50 am
Profile
Mogrl

Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 7:00 am
Posts: 13811
Post Re: Disrupting a spell
We use action declaration prior to rolling initiative, the action chosen affecting the result. So, if you declare you are going to cast a spell, and then roll an 8, you begin casting on 8 and finish it at 8 on the next round as that would be a casting time of one round; you can also choose to fast-cast and get a -2 -4 but then the effects of the spell can be more variable but at least you might (with a good initiative roll) get it off in the same round you started it.


Wed Jan 07, 2015 1:04 pm
Profile
Lore Drake
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:00 am
Posts: 1003
Location: St. James, Missouri
Post Re: Disrupting a spell
Good idea, I like that.


Wed Jan 07, 2015 1:50 pm
Profile
Greater Lore Drake
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:12 pm
Posts: 4045
Location: Granite quarry
Post Re: Disrupting a spell
Snoring Rock wrote:
So the rules state that spells can be disrupted by combat, being hit, making saves, etc., but specifically states "spell taking more than 1 round to cast".


It is for all spells. The part you are referring to simply defines what the vulnerable period is for spells longer than 1 round.

Spells that have a CT of 1 take an ENTIRE combat round to cast (not LESS than one combat round). Therefore if the caster gets hit during the combat round I wipe the spell and it is ruined. I require at least one hp of damage or a really significant physical event.

_________________
Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill

House Rules


Wed Jan 07, 2015 3:58 pm
Profile
Clang lives!
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Posts: 7123
Location: Conneaut Lake, PA
Post Re: Disrupting a spell
The way I play it is, any time the caster has something to disrupt his concentration before he casts a spell in a round, he gets a SIEGE check to retain the spell. The disruption does not have to happen immediately before the casters initiative order, just before the caster's turn.

R-

_________________
Castles & Crusades: What 3rd Edition AD&D should have been.
TLG Forum Moderator
House Rules & Whatnots
My Game Threads


Wed Jan 07, 2015 4:22 pm
Profile
Greater Lore Drake
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:12 pm
Posts: 4045
Location: Granite quarry
Post Re: Disrupting a spell
Rigon wrote:
The way I play it is, any time the caster has something to disrupt his concentration before he casts a spell in a round, he gets a SIEGE check to retain the spell. The disruption does not have to happen immediately before the casters initiative order, just before the caster's turn.

R-


So, if a caster is caster in a combat round (10 seconds long) and gets crushed flat by a boulder 5 seconds into the round, the spell goes off 5 seconds later from a flattened, dead caster? Or, did I read it wrong?

_________________
Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill

House Rules


Wed Jan 07, 2015 4:29 pm
Profile
Lore Drake
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:00 am
Posts: 1003
Location: St. James, Missouri
Post Re: Disrupting a spell
Oh I am not too sure....

CASTING TIME
Most spells take one round to cast. A spell that takes one
round (CT 1) to cast comes into effect during the caster’s
initiative turn for that round
. (pg. 74)
Spells that take more than one round to cast come into effect
during the caster’s initiative turn on the last round of the casting
time for the spell
. (pg. 74; 6th printing)

Getting hurt or being affected by hostile magic while trying to
cast a spell can break the character’s concentration and ruin a
spell. If while trying to cast a spell the character takes damage,
fails a saving throw or is otherwise successfully assaulted, the
character’s casting is disrupted unless the Castle Keeper allows
a concentration check. The interrupting event strikes during
spellcasting if it comes during the time when the character
starts and completes a spell (for a spell with a casting time
of more than one full round).
Anything that could break the
character’s concentration when casting a spell can also break
the concentration necessary to maintain a spell. A character
can’t cast a spell while concentrating on another one. (pg. 73; 6th printing)

For example, Cardom the Chromatic rolls a 6 for initiative
and he acts third in that round after his fighting companion,
Quinn, and the Ogre they are fighting. Cardom casts a spell
with a casting time of one round. The spell takes effect that
round. If Cardom chose to cast a spell with a casting time
of two, then the spell would take effect in the next round
of combat during Cardom’s turn for the next round. So, if
Cardom acted first in next round the spell would take effect
then, but if he acted last, then it would take effect after all
others had taken their action. (pg. 74; 6th printing)

So in C&C is would appear that a CT 1 spell goes off at the end of the round it was cast in. So in order to disrupt the spell, an enemy must have initiative after the caster announces and before the end of the round. So the paragraph below, also from the book (pg. 74; 6th printing) makes sense. You need to have them announce at the beginning of the round, before initiative, that they are casting. By the rules as written, it goes either way however. You can wait for it to "take effect" in the next round.

Most Castle Keepers make you announce at the beginning
of the round whether you are going to cast a spell. If so, and
you roll a low initiative roll, then you have a chance of being
struck before the spell goes off. For those Castle Keepers who
do not require announcement, some disallow any spell in the
same round in which you were hit before your initiative turn.
For Castle Keepers who do neither of the above, it would
be more a situation of simultaneous swings with an enemy
or some sort of environmental or magical effect situation
disrupting the spell.


Wed Jan 07, 2015 5:40 pm
Profile
Clang lives!
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Posts: 7123
Location: Conneaut Lake, PA
Post Re: Disrupting a spell
Arduin wrote:
Rigon wrote:
The way I play it is, any time the caster has something to disrupt his concentration before he casts a spell in a round, he gets a SIEGE check to retain the spell. The disruption does not have to happen immediately before the casters initiative order, just before the caster's turn.

R-


So, if a caster is caster in a combat round (10 seconds long) and gets crushed flat by a boulder 5 seconds into the round, the spell goes off 5 seconds later from a flattened, dead caster? Or, did I read it wrong?

Well, if the caster is dead, he obviously does not get to cast his spell, but if he survived the boulder and made a SIEGE check, he could.

R-

_________________
Castles & Crusades: What 3rd Edition AD&D should have been.
TLG Forum Moderator
House Rules & Whatnots
My Game Threads


Wed Jan 07, 2015 5:50 pm
Profile
Greater Lore Drake
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 7:00 am
Posts: 2727
Location: The Court of the Crimson King
Post Re: Disrupting a spell
Snoring Rock wrote:
I have been letting CT 1 spells go off in the same round cast. I rarely disrupt players spells. D'oh!


p. 74
"A spell that takes one round (CT 1) to cast comes into effect during the caster’s initiative turn for that round."


So, CT 1 spells take one round, but not a full round; they come into effect on the character's initiative. Your highlighted text refers to these spells. Most spells are CT 1. Sounds like you have been doing it right (whatever that means :)).

Your two main strategies are either to declare the casting before the round starts, or just remember that damage was taken before the character's initiative came up. The first way makes it easier to justify losing the action, the second way the wizard can just decide to do something else.

The Cardom the Chromatic example reinforces this. A spell that goes off NEXT round has a CT of 2.

_________________
My C&C stuff: www.rpggrognard.com


Wed Jan 07, 2015 5:59 pm
Profile
Greater Lore Drake
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:12 pm
Posts: 4045
Location: Granite quarry
Post Re: Disrupting a spell
Aergraith wrote:
p. 74
"A spell that takes one round (CT 1) to cast comes into effect during the caster’s initiative turn for that round."




I have a rule I use when running any game. When two rules conflict. Deductive logic is used to find which one is wrong (as they both cannot be right.)

In this case the Major Premise is that a round is ~10 seconds long.

A Minor Premise is that a 1 CT spell takes an entire round to cast.

The other minor premise is that all parties act in the same time frame (same combat round).

Therefore, damage that happens DURING that combat round disrupts the spell.

Example: A monster standing next to the Wizard with a sword. If the wizard chooses to cast a spell it will take ~10 seconds. The monster (no matter what he rolls for init) is NOT standing there for the better part of 10 seconds picking his nose waiting for the caster. Ergo, he strikes before the end of the round and before the spell is completed.

That's how I resolve two rules that conflict.

In this case it works out correctly if you play it out with mini's to prove which rule is logical. The rule where someone stands around doing nothing for 9 out of 10 seconds shows up as painfully weird when tested this way.

_________________
Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill

House Rules


Wed Jan 07, 2015 6:09 pm
Profile
Mogrl

Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Posts: 20660
Location: Arizona and St Louis
Post Re: Disrupting a spell
A CT of 1 actually means the spell can go off in one round. Your initiative roll determines when during that round you finish, you always start casting at 10. So if you roll a 10 on initiative, then the spell goes off on 10, it took you but a second to cast it. If you roll a 1, it took you ten seconds to cast it. So the best way to look at a CT of 1 is that it takes 1d10 seconds to cast them.

The stuff Snoring Rock quoted, and then bolded in his last post, spells all this out pretty clearly. It would probably just be even clearer if we were told to think of a CT of 1 as a 1d10 seconds casting time.

_________________
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael

Grand Knight Commander of the Society.


Wed Jan 07, 2015 6:27 pm
Profile
Greater Lore Drake
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:12 pm
Posts: 4045
Location: Granite quarry
Post Re: Disrupting a spell
Treebore wrote:
A CT of 1 actually means the spell can go off in one round.


ACTUALLY. The rule is written BOTH ways, in stand alone statements. One way says that a 1 CT spell takes ONE round to cast (10 seconds). The OTHER rule states that a 1 CT spell goes off on init (no matter when in the round).

Ergo, the rule conflict. Two different rules IF one actually reads both. Obviously it is up to the GM t sort out the conflict. Maybe future edition will remove the rule conflict.

_________________
Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill

House Rules


Wed Jan 07, 2015 6:33 pm
Profile
Mogrl

Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Posts: 20660
Location: Arizona and St Louis
Post Re: Disrupting a spell
I think for spells with a CT of 1, its pretty clear, " A spell that takes one
round (CT 1) to cast comes into effect during the caster’s
initiative turn for that round. (pg. 74)",

then for spells of greater than a CT of 1, I think that is also pretty clear. I don't see a conflict. It may be hard to figure out, but in the end I think what is intended is very clear. Still, it would make it easier if we are told to think of a CT of 1 as a actual casting time of 1D10 seconds, because that is actually how it is.

_________________
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael

Grand Knight Commander of the Society.


Wed Jan 07, 2015 6:37 pm
Profile
Greater Lore Drake
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 7:00 am
Posts: 2727
Location: The Court of the Crimson King
Post Re: Disrupting a spell
Though there is conflicting information, I favor CT 1 = same round as those same spells in d20 go off the same round (standard action); only spells that say 1 round take a "full" round. The comparison breaks down there because in d20 a "standard action" spell can generally only be interrupted by an "attack of opportunity". In C&C you can arguably stand right in a warrior's face and cast and they just have to stand there and take it (unless they go before you.)

_________________
My C&C stuff: www.rpggrognard.com


Wed Jan 07, 2015 6:49 pm
Profile
Greater Lore Drake
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:12 pm
Posts: 4045
Location: Granite quarry
Post Re: Disrupting a spell
Aergraith wrote:
In C&C you can arguably stand right in a warrior's face and cast and they just have to stand there and take it (unless they go before you.)


Exactly. I don't allow for Time Stop as the standard of combat so I stick with the CT 1 = taking one round to cast.

_________________
Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill

House Rules


Wed Jan 07, 2015 7:08 pm
Profile
Greater Lore Drake
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 7:00 am
Posts: 2727
Location: The Court of the Crimson King
Post Re: Disrupting a spell
Arduin wrote:
I have a rule I use when running any game. When two rules conflict. Deductive logic is used to find which one is wrong (as they both cannot be right.)
In this case it works out correctly if you play it out with mini's to prove which rule is logical. The rule where someone stands around doing nothing for 9 out of 10 seconds shows up as painfully weird when tested this way.


That's fine. In LBB OD&D there really wasn't a combat sequence at all, and in Holmes initiative was really between two combatants and didn't have any kind of timeline. Everything of course is happening simultaneously.

While I find your thinking reasonable, bear in mind no one is really standing around for 9 seconds no matter if you stick to the combat sequence or try to enforce simultaneity:

(PHB 171:
It is important to remember that each round is an abstract
measurement. The actions and activities that occur in a round
are not meant to take place during specific seconds or segments.
It should be viewed as a short range of time during which many
things happen. Although each character or monster must
wait their turn to act as determined by initiative, they do not
necessarily act in that same order in a narrative sense. The
moment of occurrence is not necessarily equal to the initiative
roll. Abstract consideration of the combat round allows for a
more fluid and expansive narrative.)

The initiative counts are just a tool to help a CK sort out the action and give players a reasonable and consistent expectation of what happens when. It's usually easier for a CK to rule about something on the turn of the player doing that thing. If it's easier for you to take all of the actions up front and resolve them with your common sense, that's fine. I think the interpretations given in this thread are all reasonable.

_________________
My C&C stuff: www.rpggrognard.com


Wed Jan 07, 2015 7:10 pm
Profile
Greater Lore Drake
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:12 pm
Posts: 4045
Location: Granite quarry
Post Re: Disrupting a spell
Snoring Rock wrote:
Oh I am not too sure....



Really? What does this sentence mean? "Most spells take one round to cast."

_________________
Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill

House Rules


Wed Jan 07, 2015 7:12 pm
Profile
Greater Lore Drake
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 7:00 am
Posts: 2727
Location: The Court of the Crimson King
Post Re: Disrupting a spell
Arduin wrote:
Snoring Rock wrote:
Oh I am not too sure....



Really? What does this sentence mean? "Most spells take one round to cast."


I think we've covered that. It means

" A spell that takes one
round (CT 1) to cast
comes into effect during the caster’s
initiative turn for that round. "

_________________
My C&C stuff: www.rpggrognard.com


Wed Jan 07, 2015 7:19 pm
Profile
Greater Lore Drake
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:12 pm
Posts: 4045
Location: Granite quarry
Post Re: Disrupting a spell
Aergraith wrote:
" A spell that takes one
round (CT 1) to cast
comes into effect during the caster’s
initiative turn for that round. "


Nope. That sentence says NOTHING about init. That's why I asked the question. To see who actually read the sentence as written.

_________________
Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill

House Rules


Wed Jan 07, 2015 7:23 pm
Profile
Lore Drake
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:00 am
Posts: 1003
Location: St. James, Missouri
Post Re: Disrupting a spell
Treebore wrote:
A CT of 1 actually means the spell can go off in one round. Your initiative roll determines when during that round you finish, you always start casting at 10. So if you roll a 10 on initiative, then the spell goes off on 10, it took you but a second to cast it. If you roll a 1, it took you ten seconds to cast it. So the best way to look at a CT of 1 is that it takes 1d10 seconds to cast them.

The stuff Snoring Rock quoted, and then bolded in his last post, spells all this out pretty clearly. It would probably just be even clearer if we were told to think of a CT of 1 as a 1d10 seconds casting time.


Most Castle Keepers make you announce at the beginning
of the round whether you are going to cast a spell. If so, and
you roll a low initiative roll, then you have a chance of being
struck before the spell goes off. For those Castle Keepers who
do not require announcement
, some disallow any spell in the
same round in which you were hit before your initiative turn.
For Castle Keepers who do neither of the above, it would
be more a situation of simultaneous swings with an enemy
or some sort of environmental or magical effect situation
disrupting the spell.

The above quote supports both and statements that, depending on how the CK runs his/her rounds, will determine how the rule applies. It is not so much a matter on conflicting rules as it is a choice of how to incorporate/adjudicate the rule.

One thing seems clear here. The rules in C&C were taken from 1e (segmented rounds) and they had to be "rounded" up (no pun intended) in order to work with the new-school definition of a round. So Tree, I think a round does indeed seem to be 1d10 seconds in length. Look at the CT for 98% of the spells. If they were cut down to segments, it may make more sense. Knowing that the origin of the CT 1 was anything under 10 segments = a round, then it makes more sense. Given that, I am inclined to have them announce prior to initiative, what they will do. This plays into Arduin's assertion that these actions are spontaneous and simultaneous. No one is just standing there waiting their turn in the round. It screams for you to announce intentions prior to initiative.


Wed Jan 07, 2015 7:33 pm
Profile
Clang lives!
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Posts: 7123
Location: Conneaut Lake, PA
Post Re: Disrupting a spell
Arduin wrote:
Aergraith wrote:
" A spell that takes one
round (CT 1) to cast
comes into effect during the caster’s
initiative turn for that round. "


Nope. That sentence says NOTHING about init. That's why I asked the question. To see who actually read the sentence as written.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

R-

_________________
Castles & Crusades: What 3rd Edition AD&D should have been.
TLG Forum Moderator
House Rules & Whatnots
My Game Threads


Wed Jan 07, 2015 7:36 pm
Profile
Lore Drake
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:00 am
Posts: 1003
Location: St. James, Missouri
Post Re: Disrupting a spell
Arduin wrote:
Snoring Rock wrote:
Oh I am not too sure....



Really? What does this sentence mean? "Most spells take one round to cast."


No.

They clearly take 1/10 to 1 round to cast. If I am initiative 10 and the wizard next to me rolls initiative 1 and we both cast sleep, both of our spells go off at the same time; at the end of the round. My spell stands a better chance of being disrupted however. Unless......I announce prior to initiative that I will cast.

That is how it should be. If not it means that those who roll lower on initiative are able to re-act faster to my spell, knowing that I have cast it, and therefore given more time to react. Make sense? Everyone should know I am casting once I announce prior to initiative.


Wed Jan 07, 2015 7:39 pm
Profile
Greater Lore Drake
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:12 pm
Posts: 4045
Location: Granite quarry
Post Re: Disrupting a spell
Rigon wrote:
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

R-


What word? Nothing?

_________________
Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill

House Rules


Wed Jan 07, 2015 7:40 pm
Profile
Greater Lore Drake
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:12 pm
Posts: 4045
Location: Granite quarry
Post Re: Disrupting a spell
Snoring Rock wrote:
Arduin wrote:
Snoring Rock wrote:
Oh I am not too sure....



Really? What does this sentence mean? "Most spells take one round to cast."


No.



No, what? I simply asked what does the sentence, "Most spells take one round to cast." mean. Simple question.

_________________
Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill

House Rules


Wed Jan 07, 2015 7:41 pm
Profile
Mogrl

Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Posts: 20660
Location: Arizona and St Louis
Post Re: Disrupting a spell
A round in C&C is definitively defined as being 10 seconds long, with 6 rounds making up a minute. So if a CK wants to go by the book, as intended by the Trolls, however you wish to word it, the spell caster starts casting the spell at the top of the round, and finishes on whatever their initiative roll is. If they get hit between the start time and their initiative then the disruption can occur. Of course, this is C&C, so the Trolls also added wording to account for how any given CK wants to do it, IE house rules and the like. After all, the do have to show that C&C is not meant to be taken as a strict rule book, but a set of loose guide lines. Heck, they even tell you how to do Concentration checks to not lose the spell, or not use them at all. In C&C we have choices, follow the suggested rule, or do it however the heck we want.

_________________
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael

Grand Knight Commander of the Society.


Wed Jan 07, 2015 7:42 pm
Profile
Lore Drake
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:00 am
Posts: 1003
Location: St. James, Missouri
Post Re: Disrupting a spell
But there is the option in the rules of having the spell go off in the same sequence in the next round. There are at least three ways to run it. I think there needs to be more chances to have a spell disrupted than what is presented sometimes.


Wed Jan 07, 2015 7:42 pm
Profile
Greater Lore Drake
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 7:00 am
Posts: 2727
Location: The Court of the Crimson King
Post Re: Disrupting a spell
Snoring Rock wrote:
Given that, I am inclined to have them announce prior to initiative, what they will do. This plays into Arduin's assertion that these actions are spontaneous and simultaneous. No one is just standing there waiting their turn in the round. It screams for you to announce intentions prior to initiative.


I find announcing makes a lot of issues just go away. Just decide up front what will happen if conditions change by someone's initiative count. Do they lose their action or do they get to do something else? Of course, if they get to do something else, you may as well run without announcing, because it works out the same (for spellcasting, you'd just say, you got attacked before your count: you can't cast.)

I used to require announcing and have moved away from it because:
1) conditions change quickly within a round and its nice to let the players react
2) less to remember.
3) this one cuts both ways: if you don't require announcing, some of the players have more time to decide what to do. But if players are spending other people's rounds planning, they aren't likely to be listening.
4) Announcing sometimes encourages players to plan with each other for far too long before the round starts. It can be good for highly tactical combat and planning, but for quick moving hack and slash it gets boring.

I still think announcing is a great idea, but especially in online games, and especially with people of a d20 background, no announcing or selective announcing (e.g. just spells) works better for me.

_________________
My C&C stuff: www.rpggrognard.com


Wed Jan 07, 2015 7:43 pm
Profile
Mogrl

Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Posts: 20660
Location: Arizona and St Louis
Post Re: Disrupting a spell
Arduin, I like how you quote a sentence saying it says nothing about Initiative, when the word is in the sentence you quote, spelling out when the spell actually goes off.

Are you intentionally obtuse, or do you have some kind of learning disability?

_________________
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael

Grand Knight Commander of the Society.


Wed Jan 07, 2015 7:44 pm
Profile
Greater Lore Drake
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:12 pm
Posts: 4045
Location: Granite quarry
Post Re: Disrupting a spell
Treebore wrote:
Arduin, I like how you quote a sentence


That's nice. I like it too.

Also you REALLY need to drop the bad habit of going ad hom when you can't answer or, don't like a question.

_________________
Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill

House Rules


Wed Jan 07, 2015 7:45 pm
Profile
Lore Drake
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:00 am
Posts: 1003
Location: St. James, Missouri
Post Re: Disrupting a spell
Arduin wrote:
Snoring Rock wrote:
Arduin wrote:
Snoring Rock wrote:
Oh I am not too sure....



Really? What does this sentence mean? "Most spells take one round to cast."


No.



No, what? I simply asked what does the sentence, "Most spells take one round to cast." mean. Simple question.


CASTING TIME
Most spells take one round to cast. A spell that takes one
round (CT 1) to cast comes into effect
Quote:
during the caster’s
initiative turn for that round
. (pg. 74)
Spells that take more than one round to cast come into effect
during the caster’s initiative turn on the last round of the casting
time for the spell. (pg. 74; 6th printing)

If I have 3 characters fighting an orc and one is a wizard and the initiative roll winds up: Orc 10, Fighter 7, Cleric 4 and Wizard 2. The wizard casts the CT 1 spell that goes off the same round "as in the text above", then how long did the spell take to cast? 1 round; yes technically. But not really. It is simultaneous but the caster actually started casting at the beginning of the round. The orc gets no chance to disrupt the spell. If the caster announces prior to initiative, then the orc could direct his attack at the robed wizard. He could disrupt the spell before the wizard's slot in the round comes up. Yes, one round, but in description of action, not actually.

That's my take.


Wed Jan 07, 2015 7:52 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 87 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.