Disrupting a spell

[Treebore]

Well, yeah, even the C&C PH says there is a difference between the initiative order and what is going on. They point otu there is also a "narrative sense" going on. So no one is standing still, they are moving, circling each other, feinting, blocking, etc... So just like it was described in 1E AD&D, a lot of things go on in that round, however it is measured, but your attack roll or cast spell, along with any major moving (more than 5 feet), are your most significant/meaningful actions for the round, everything else just leads up or follows that significant moment.

[pawndream]

KIM! You can't let the wizard cast if he takes damage! What are you thinking?

The whole game will break.

IT'S OUT OF CONTROL! THE LUNATICS ARE RUNNING THE ASYLUM!

Egads, I have been running a broken game for 35 years! Someone call the RPGPolice!

Apparently you and me both, though in my case it's only been 30 years (and counting!).

At any rate, I handle spellcasting the same way as you. Spells go off during a casters initiative count, irrespective of what happened to that caster before his initiative comes up...barring the caster being neutralized in some other way.

You want to stop a caster from getting off a spell? Better hope you kill him/her before their initiative count comes up!

I have played with other GMs who use more granular initiative systems, but for my money they don't add anything to the game but needless complexity.

[Lurker]

KIM! You can't let the wizard cast if he takes damage! What are you thinking?

The whole game will break.

IT'S OUT OF CONTROL! THE LUNATICS ARE RUNNING THE ASYLUM!

Egads, I have been running a broken game for 35 years! Someone call the RPGPolice!

Apparently you and me both, though in my case it's only been 30 years (and counting!).

At any rate, I handle spellcasting the same way as you. Spells go off during a casters initiative count, irrespective of what happened to that caster before his initiative comes up...barring the caster being neutralized in some other way.

You want to stop a caster from getting off a spell? Better hope you kill him/her before their initiative count comes up!

I have played with other GMs who use more granular initiative systems, but for my money they don't add anything to the game but needless complexity.

I tend to agree (well play in games that the general rule agrees with that, it isn't like I'm running a game myself).

But, what do you mean 'neutralize'? Kill dead, or something else?

I ask because in one combat I had this scenario: My paladin had grabbed the MU but he got his first spell off. Then I said I tighten my grip on him and shake the bagezas out of him when he starts mumbling or making hand gestures. For the next 4 maybe 5 rounds, until I killed him ( I was rolling horrid attack rolls),I had to make a str check to keep ahold of the little bugger, but he had to roll concentration checks to get his spell off.

To me the stated focus of shaking him till his brains rattled anytime he started trying to cast a spell counts as neutralized. Would it have been the same thing in your games?

[mbeacom]

Well, yeah, even the C&C PH says there is a difference between the initiative order and what is going on. They point otu there is also a "narrative sense" going on. So no one is standing still, they are moving, circling each other, feinting, blocking, etc... So just like it was described in 1E AD&D, a lot of things go on in that round, however it is measured, but your attack roll or cast spell, along with any major moving (more than 5 feet), are your most significant/meaningful actions for the round, everything else just leads up or follows that significant moment.

So yeah, I think we agree (and now that I've got hold of my books, it is clear the rules do as well). Everything is happening simultaneously and initiative order is essentially an abstraction used to sort it all out for the game purposes, rather than the narrative purposes.

[Treebore]

KIM! You can't let the wizard cast if he takes damage! What are you thinking?

The whole game will break.

IT'S OUT OF CONTROL! THE LUNATICS ARE RUNNING THE ASYLUM!

Egads, I have been running a broken game for 35 years! Someone call the RPGPolice!

Apparently you and me both, though in my case it's only been 30 years (and counting!).

At any rate, I handle spellcasting the same way as you. Spells go off during a casters initiative count, irrespective of what happened to that caster before his initiative comes up...barring the caster being neutralized in some other way.

You want to stop a caster from getting off a spell? Better hope you kill him/her before their initiative count comes up!

I have played with other GMs who use more granular initiative systems, but for my money they don't add anything to the game but needless complexity.

I tend to agree (well play in games that the general rule agrees with that, it isn't like I'm running a game myself).

But, what do you mean 'neutralize'? Kill dead, or something else?

I ask because in one combat I had this scenario: My paladin had grabbed the MU but he got his first spell off. Then I said I tighten my grip on him and shake the bagezas out of him when he starts mumbling or making hand gestures. For the next 4 maybe 5 rounds, until I killed him ( I was rolling horrid attack rolls),I had to make a str check to keep ahold of the little bugger, but he had to roll concentration checks to get his spell off.

To me the stated focus of shaking him till his brains rattled anytime he started trying to cast a spell counts as neutralized. Would it have been the same thing in your games?

Well, by the book, a grappled magic user CANNOT cast spells. The ONLY action you can take is a full round action to break the grapple. The defender is considered prone and helpless until they break the hold.

[Arduin]

Well, by the book, a grappled magic user CANNOT cast spells. The ONLY action you can take is a full round action to break the grapple. The defender is considered prone and helpless until they break the hold.

How 'bout with verbal only component?. I remember mention of that in the PHB

[Treebore]

Well, by the book, a grappled magic user CANNOT cast spells. The ONLY action you can take is a full round action to break the grapple. The defender is considered prone and helpless until they break the hold.

How 'bout with verbal only component?. I remember mention of that in the PHB

Well, reading JUST the Grappling rule, it explicitly states no action can be taken other than to break free, and that until you break free, you are considered both prone and helpless. As a one time wrestler myself, such a total hold on someone is not conducive to breathing well, let alone speaking clearly. So I would even include verbal only spells as not being possible, unless it explicitly states that it is a 1 word only verbal component, or darn close to being almost that quick. So I'd have to see what is said elsewhere on the issue to say anything more definitely.

[Arduin]

Well, by the book, a grappled magic user CANNOT cast spells. The ONLY action you can take is a full round action to break the grapple. The defender is considered prone and helpless until they break the hold.

How 'bout with verbal only component?. I remember mention of that in the PHB

Well, reading JUST the Grappling rule, it explicitly states no action can be taken other than to break free, and that until you break free, you are considered both prone and helpless. As a one time wrestler myself, such a total hold on someone is not conducive to breathing well, let alone speaking clearly. So I would even include verbal only spells as not being possible, unless it explicitly states that it is a 1 word only verbal component, or darn close to being almost that quick. So I'd have to see what is said elsewhere on the issue to say anything more definitely.

I agree. I wrestled in H.S. and there is no way one could smoothly recite something several seconds long while in a good hold. I just hadn't had a caster try it yet.

[pawndream]

what do you mean 'neutralize'? Kill dead, or something else?

I ask because in one combat I had this scenario: My paladin had grabbed the MU but he got his first spell off. Then I said I tighten my grip on him and shake the bagezas out of him when he starts mumbling or making hand gestures. For the next 4 maybe 5 rounds, until I killed him ( I was rolling horrid attack rolls),I had to make a str check to keep ahold of the little bugger, but he had to roll concentration checks to get his spell off.

To me the stated focus of shaking him till his brains rattled anytime he started trying to cast a spell counts as neutralized. Would it have been the same thing in your games?

Yes. I probably would have handled it the same way. I would not have allowed a grappled mage to cast spells.

So, grappling the mage would be one way to neutralize him. If he can't move, he can't perform somatic gestures. Likewise, silence spell will also take care of a mage, as will hold person, and other spells which make it impossible for the wizard to move, speak or access spell components and/or their spellbook.

Or you can just kill them before they get a chance to cast.

[Lurker]

...

Or you can just kill them before they get a chance to cast.

Like I said, I'd been rolling horridly on my attack rolls,

So, I grabbed and held on to make sure he stopped raining spells on the rest of the party ... Not to heroic but it worked

[Snoring Rock]

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)

I get it, that some CK's will hand wave (these are not the rules as written you are looking for) CT and not mess with spells being disrupted in their games, at least not the one's cast in less that 2 rounds anyway. That is cool. The flexibility of the game is the reason C&C evolved.

My original post was for clarification on the rules as written. It appears that in order to disrupt a spell caster doing his thing, you must damage him or distract him (in the opinion of the CK) at any time in the round, seeing that all action is simultaneous, or at least visualized that way. No combatant is just standing there clueless during the combat, waiting for his action. Actions are just resolved in an orderly fashion, using initiative. While I agree, I do believe that those with higher initiative do in fact act slightly faster than those who roll lower.

My example of this is that those with loaded crossbows win the initiative regardless of what is rolled. Another would be that certain speed related spells and/or advantages, give you bonuses to initiative.

So the original question is: exactly when do the spells go off? The answer appears in the text above, from the book. That would lead me to use a declaration phase when appropriate in my games. If not, those with lower initiative get and advantage by seeing the action and reacting to it. That would rule out any kind of simultaneous action. It works for me. After all there are a few combat maneuvers that require they be announced prior to initiative rolls anyway.

[Lord Dynel]

I don't think it has anything to do with who's doing it wrong and for how many years they've been doing it incorrectly (you guys should be ASHAMED of yourselves, by the way!! ) more so than trying to figure out what the "official" C&C way is "supposed" to be. In the end, if it works for you, then it's not wrong.

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)

I get it, that some CK's will hand wave (these are not the rules as written you are looking for) CT and not mess with spells being disrupted in their games, at least not the one's cast in less that 2 rounds anyway. That is cool. The flexibility of the game is the reason C&C evolved.

My original post was for clarification on the rules as written. It appears that in order to disrupt a spell caster doing his thing, you must damage him or distract him (in the opinion of the CK) at any time in the round, seeing that all action is simultaneous, or at least visualized that way. No combatant is just standing there clueless during the combat, waiting for his action. Actions are just resolved in an orderly fashion, using initiative. While I agree, I do believe that those with higher initiative do in fact act slightly faster than those who roll lower.

My example of this is that those with loaded crossbows win the initiative regardless of what is rolled. Another would be that certain speed related spells and/or advantages, give you bonuses to initiative.

So the original question is: exactly when do the spells go off? The answer appears in the text above, from the book. That would lead me to use a declaration phase when appropriate in my games. If not, those with lower initiative get and advantage by seeing the action and reacting to it. That would rule out any kind of simultaneous action. It works for me. After all there are a few combat maneuvers that require they be announced prior to initiative rolls anyway.

I first played C&C without a declaration phase, if memory serves. I didn't like it. Though it's a step back from 3.x/d20 in complexity, I do like the tactical aspect of the declaration phase.

Again, I've never liked the "simultaneous" action idea. I get this crazy picture in my head of the PCs and their foes standing some distance apart and running together in some big scrum, only to back out to do it again until one side or the other is dead. Simultaneous as in everything happen in the same 10-second span, but not simultaneous as in everything is happening at the exact moment/instance/second is how I've always viewed it. I think that's one of the original reasons rounds are broken up into a span of time (depending on game/edition). Something like GURPS, where there's one second intervals, there are only "single" actions you can take (even though one action is a "move and attack" - it's considered a melded action to do both for that particular action).

I bring this up (yet again) to agree with you, Rock - If you don't use a declaration, then yeah, foes with a lower count get advantage on a caster and could react to it. But I think either way works. A declaration phase exists to allow for some "intent" - for example, it takes time to cast a spell. If I cast a magic missile at an orc, there's some lead-up time to it. To me, that makes sense. If someone cuts him down in the interim, then (at the CK's discretion) I could stop casting or do something else, or the magic missile might hit a fresh corpse. I think that goes along better with the spirit of the rules, instead of be able to cast spells on my count, without stated intent. In my opinion, simultaneous actions don't make sense...but that's me. Maybe I'm harping on something that's not really an issue. If so, my apologies!

ACKS has an interesting way to do initiative, that's almost what we're talking about, and a slight deviation from the C&C rules. You only declare if you intend on casting a spell, withdrawing, or retreating. Spells are lost if you take damage or fail a save before your turn in combat. It meld the stationary, focused, and delicate nature of spellcasting with the chaos of a combat. Just my two cents.

[Snoring Rock]

Agreed. I do not think it is all simultaneous. Even hitting a target with a sword is something that does not take 10 seconds. It takes 1 or less. The deal is, it takes 10 seconds of hitting, dodging and jabbing to hit enough times or wear the opponent down enough to reduce HP. So everyone is doing something (hitting moving, dodging, reaching into a component pouch) but not accomplishing it all at the same time.

[mbeacom]

I don't think it has anything to do with who's doing it wrong and for how many years they've been doing it incorrectly (you guys should be ASHAMED of yourselves, by the way!! ) more so than trying to figure out what the "official" C&C way is "supposed" to be. In the end, if it works for you, then it's not wrong.

CASTING TIME
Most spells take one round to cast. A spell that takes one
round (CT 1) ...

So the original question is: exactly when do the spells go off? The answer appears in the text above, from the book. That would lead me to use a declaration phase when appropriate in my games. If not, those with lower initiative get and advantage by seeing the action and reacting to it. That would rule out any kind of simultaneous action. It works for me. After all there are a few combat maneuvers that require they be announced prior to initiative rolls anyway.

I first played C&C without a declaration phase, if memory serves. I didn't like it. Though it's a step back from 3.x/d20 in complexity, I do like the tactical aspect of the declaration phase.

Again, I've never liked the "simultaneous" action idea. I get this crazy picture in my head of the PCs and their foes standing some distance apart and running together in some big scrum, only to back out to do it again until one side or the other is dead. Simultaneous as in everything happen in the same 10-second span, but not simultaneous as in everything is happening at the exact moment/instance/second is how I've always viewed it. I think that's one of the original reasons rounds are broken up into a span of time (depending on game/edition). Something like GURPS, where there's one second intervals, there are only "single" actions you can take (even though one action is a "move and attack" - it's considered a melded action to do both for that particular action).

I bring this up (yet again) to agree with you, Rock - If you don't use a declaration, then yeah, foes with a lower count get advantage on a caster and could react to it. But I think either way works. A declaration phase exists to allow for some "intent" - for example, it takes time to cast a spell. If I cast a magic missile at an orc, there's some lead-up time to it. To me, that makes sense. If someone cuts him down in the interim, then (at the CK's discretion) I could stop casting or do something else, or the magic missile might hit a fresh corpse. I think that goes along better with the spirit of the rules, instead of be able to cast spells on my count, without stated intent. In my opinion, simultaneous actions don't make sense...but that's me. Maybe I'm harping on something that's not really an issue. If so, my apologies!

ACKS has an interesting way to do initiative, that's almost what we're talking about, and a slight deviation from the C&C rules. You only declare if you intend on casting a spell, withdrawing, or retreating. Spells are lost if you take damage or fail a save before your turn in combat. It meld the stationary, focused, and delicate nature of spellcasting with the chaos of a combat. Just my two cents.

Based on the bolded segments, I'd say we're in total agreement. And even though you say you don't like simultaneous action, you are playing using it. I think we're just getting hung up on terminology. I've never meant to say that everything happens at the exact same "instant". Obviously that's silly. However, in the original example of a warrior trying to disrupt the mage, I would say that's happening at the same time. WHILE the wizard is casting, the warrior is attempting to disrupt. At the same time. So who "wins"? That's what the initiative roll is for.

I would argue, that if you use a declaration phase, you're implicitly agreeing that everything happens simultaneously (as I use the word). Because if it's not simultaneous then why WOULDN'T players get to react to what happened before their turn?

Or, here's another way to look at it. Players generally get ONE action per round. If that player is NOT just standing there, but they're not actually doing their action until their turn, what exactly are they doing? My response is that they ARE engaging in their single action that round. We just don't know how successful or quickly they do it until the initiative dice are rolled.

[mbeacom]

Agreed. I do not think it is all simultaneous. Even hitting a target with a sword is something that does not take 10 seconds. It takes 1 or less. The deal is, it takes 10 seconds of hitting, dodging and jabbing to hit enough times or wear the opponent down enough to reduce HP. So everyone is doing something (hitting moving, dodging, reaching into a component pouch) but not accomplishing it all at the same time.

This is exactly what I call "simultaneous" actions so I think we're just using the term differently. So, sure, the actual swordblow is not struck at the exactly instant that the spell is completed. But the larger point is that the guy with the sword is doing his thing (his action) as the same time (simultaneous) as the wizards is casting (his action). The whole purpose for initiative rolls is to see who "wins" this contest. If it's not simultaneous, then the other players can't be engaging in their actions that turn and must be doing nothing or getting some other action we don't know what it is.

[Treebore]

Yeah, a round is not static, there is a lot actually going on each round, just the significant stuff, what you roll for, the movement you do, if any, all happens or starts on your initiative for whatever reasons you can imagine. Which is how it has been since 1E AD&D.

[mbeacom]

Yeah, a round is not static, there is a lot actually going on each round, just the significant stuff, what you roll for, the movement you do, if any, all happens or starts on your initiative for whatever reasons you can imagine.

If that works for your game, that's cool. But I like what the PHB says better.

"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. "

"The moment of occurrence is not necessarily equal to the
initiative roll. "

[Lord Dynel]

I don't think it has anything to do with who's doing it wrong and for how many years they've been doing it incorrectly (you guys should be ASHAMED of yourselves, by the way!! ) more so than trying to figure out what the "official" C&C way is "supposed" to be. In the end, if it works for you, then it's not wrong.

CASTING TIME
Most spells take one round to cast. A spell that takes one
round (CT 1) ...

So the original question is: exactly when do the spells go off? The answer appears in the text above, from the book. That would lead me to use a declaration phase when appropriate in my games. If not, those with lower initiative get and advantage by seeing the action and reacting to it. That would rule out any kind of simultaneous action. It works for me. After all there are a few combat maneuvers that require they be announced prior to initiative rolls anyway.

I first played C&C without a declaration phase, if memory serves. I didn't like it. Though it's a step back from 3.x/d20 in complexity, I do like the tactical aspect of the declaration phase.

Again, I've never liked the "simultaneous" action idea. I get this crazy picture in my head of the PCs and their foes standing some distance apart and running together in some big scrum, only to back out to do it again until one side or the other is dead. Simultaneous as in everything happen in the same 10-second span, but not simultaneous as in everything is happening at the exact moment/instance/second is how I've always viewed it. I think that's one of the original reasons rounds are broken up into a span of time (depending on game/edition). Something like GURPS, where there's one second intervals, there are only "single" actions you can take (even though one action is a "move and attack" - it's considered a melded action to do both for that particular action).

I bring this up (yet again) to agree with you, Rock - If you don't use a declaration, then yeah, foes with a lower count get advantage on a caster and could react to it. But I think either way works. A declaration phase exists to allow for some "intent" - for example, it takes time to cast a spell. If I cast a magic missile at an orc, there's some lead-up time to it. To me, that makes sense. If someone cuts him down in the interim, then (at the CK's discretion) I could stop casting or do something else, or the magic missile might hit a fresh corpse. I think that goes along better with the spirit of the rules, instead of be able to cast spells on my count, without stated intent. In my opinion, simultaneous actions don't make sense...but that's me. Maybe I'm harping on something that's not really an issue. If so, my apologies!

ACKS has an interesting way to do initiative, that's almost what we're talking about, and a slight deviation from the C&C rules. You only declare if you intend on casting a spell, withdrawing, or retreating. Spells are lost if you take damage or fail a save before your turn in combat. It meld the stationary, focused, and delicate nature of spellcasting with the chaos of a combat. Just my two cents.

Based on the bolded segments, I'd say we're in total agreement. And even though you say you don't like simultaneous action, you are playing using it. I think we're just getting hung up on terminology. I've never meant to say that everything happens at the exact same "instant". Obviously that's silly. However, in the original example of a warrior trying to disrupt the mage, I would say that's happening at the same time. WHILE the wizard is casting, the warrior is attempting to disrupt. At the same time. So who "wins"? That's what the initiative roll is for.

I would argue, that if you use a declaration phase, you're implicitly agreeing that everything happens simultaneously (as I use the word). Because if it's not simultaneous then why WOULDN'T players get to react to what happened before their turn?

Or, here's another way to look at it. Players generally get ONE action per round. If that player is NOT just standing there, but they're not actually doing their action until their turn, what exactly are they doing? My response is that they ARE engaging in their single action that round. We just don't know how successful or quickly they do it until the initiative dice are rolled.

Yeah, I think we do agree. However, and I can completely understand based on how I wrote it, that's there's a little bit of discrepancy in out points (all well and good, of course). I allow for some mutable actions during the round. If Player 1 announced that they were going to approach Orc A and attack it, and Orc A dies before Player 1 gets to go, I allow Player 1 to "change his course" and attack Orc B, for example, if he can feasibly do so. A simultaneous action would be (in my opinion) the CK saying, "Nope, sorry Player 1 - you announced you were attacking Orc A, so all you can do is smack a corpse by the time you get there." I see where we are pretty much on the same page, though.

I guess there is a bit of simultaneity, because everyone starts from a "resting point" of sorts (if that makes sense) at the beginning of the round (at declaration, or right before the first combatant acts) and moves about the battlefield from that point. The declaration phase could be considered a simultaneous beginning of action for that 10-second span of time (i.e. the round) and I feel it's mutable - somewhat - if an intended action is rendered invalid from actions that happen before it. And if it makes sense, of course.

[Arduin]

My original post was for clarification on the rules as written. It appears that in order to disrupt a spell caster doing his thing, you must damage him or distract him (in the opinion of the CK) at any time in the round, seeing that all action is simultaneous, or at least visualized that way. No combatant is just standing there clueless during the combat, waiting for his action. Actions are just resolved in an orderly fashion, using initiative. While I agree, I do believe that those with higher initiative do in fact act slightly faster than those who roll lower.

My example of this is that those with loaded crossbows win the initiative regardless of what is rolled. Another would be that certain speed related spells and/or advantages, give you bonuses to initiative.

So the original question is: exactly when do the spells go off?

You are correct in all these observations. Because CT 1 spells are supposed to take the entire combat round to cast I found that just automatically giving those casters a Init of 1 solves most of the illogical situations. The other part is the CK using common sense. The guy with the loaded (and aimed) crossbow goes first in 99% of situations. You just rule it so.

Initiative is there to make it easier to run. But, as you noted, "No combatant is just standing there clueless during the combat, waiting for his action." It is up to the GM t adjudicate so that ridiculous actions don't occur. Unfortunately, in my ~40 years of playing, I've found that only about 25% of GM's are good enough to pull it off. or, to even know that they should be trying to pull it off.

The best way I've found is to use the declaration paradigm that Gygax suggested in the 1st Ed DMG. The DM first silently decides the bad guys actions then, the players declare. THEN, the round starts.

[mbeacom]

I don't think it has anything to do with who's doing it wrong and for how many years they've been doing it incorrectly (you guys should be ASHAMED of yourselves, by the way!! ) more so than trying to figure out what the "official" C&C way is "supposed" to be. In the end, if it works for you, then it's not wrong.

CASTING TIME
Most spells take one round to cast. A spell that takes one
round (CT 1) ...

So the original question is: exactly when do the spells go off? The answer appears in the text above, from the book. That would lead me to use a declaration phase when appropriate in my games. If not, those with lower initiative get and advantage by seeing the action and reacting to it. That would rule out any kind of simultaneous action. It works for me. After all there are a few combat maneuvers that require they be announced prior to initiative rolls anyway.

I first played C&C without a declaration phase, if memory serves. I didn't like it. Though it's a step back from 3.x/d20 in complexity, I do like the tactical aspect of the declaration phase.

Again, I've never liked the "simultaneous" action idea. I get this crazy picture in my head of the PCs and their foes standing some distance apart and running together in some big scrum, only to back out to do it again until one side or the other is dead. Simultaneous as in everything happen in the same 10-second span, but not simultaneous as in everything is happening at the exact moment/instance/second is how I've always viewed it. I think that's one of the original reasons rounds are broken up into a span of time (depending on game/edition). Something like GURPS, where there's one second intervals, there are only "single" actions you can take (even though one action is a "move and attack" - it's considered a melded action to do both for that particular action).

I bring this up (yet again) to agree with you, Rock - If you don't use a declaration, then yeah, foes with a lower count get advantage on a caster and could react to it. But I think either way works. A declaration phase exists to allow for some "intent" - for example, it takes time to cast a spell. If I cast a magic missile at an orc, there's some lead-up time to it. To me, that makes sense. If someone cuts him down in the interim, then (at the CK's discretion) I could stop casting or do something else, or the magic missile might hit a fresh corpse. I think that goes along better with the spirit of the rules, instead of be able to cast spells on my count, without stated intent. In my opinion, simultaneous actions don't make sense...but that's me. Maybe I'm harping on something that's not really an issue. If so, my apologies!

ACKS has an interesting way to do initiative, that's almost what we're talking about, and a slight deviation from the C&C rules. You only declare if you intend on casting a spell, withdrawing, or retreating. Spells are lost if you take damage or fail a save before your turn in combat. It meld the stationary, focused, and delicate nature of spellcasting with the chaos of a combat. Just my two cents.

Based on the bolded segments, I'd say we're in total agreement. And even though you say you don't like simultaneous action, you are playing using it. I think we're just getting hung up on terminology. I've never meant to say that everything happens at the exact same "instant". Obviously that's silly. However, in the original example of a warrior trying to disrupt the mage, I would say that's happening at the same time. WHILE the wizard is casting, the warrior is attempting to disrupt. At the same time. So who "wins"? That's what the initiative roll is for.

I would argue, that if you use a declaration phase, you're implicitly agreeing that everything happens simultaneously (as I use the word). Because if it's not simultaneous then why WOULDN'T players get to react to what happened before their turn?

Or, here's another way to look at it. Players generally get ONE action per round. If that player is NOT just standing there, but they're not actually doing their action until their turn, what exactly are they doing? My response is that they ARE engaging in their single action that round. We just don't know how successful or quickly they do it until the initiative dice are rolled.

Yeah, I think we do agree. However, and I can completely understand based on how I wrote it, that's there's a little bit of discrepancy in out points (all well and good, of course). I allow for some mutable actions during the round. If Player 1 announced that they were going to approach Orc A and attack it, and Orc A dies before Player 1 gets to go, I allow Player 1 to "change his course" and attack Orc B, for example, if he can feasibly do so. A simultaneous action would be (in my opinion) the CK saying, "Nope, sorry Player 1 - you announced you were attacking Orc A, so all you can do is smack a corpse by the time you get there." I see where we are pretty much on the same page, though.

I guess there is a bit of simultaneity, because everyone starts from a "resting point" of sorts (if that makes sense) at the beginning of the round (at declaration, or right before the first combatant acts) and moves about the battlefield from that point. The declaration phase could be considered a simultaneous beginning of action for that 10-second span of time (i.e. the round) and I feel it's mutable - somewhat - if an intended action is rendered invalid from actions that happen before it. And if it makes sense, of course.

Yep, totally agree. In your orc example, in my "simultaneous" action resolution, it would look something like this. First, let me say that I frequently "re-narrate" the action before someones turn so they know how things are panning out in the round. In your example, Player 1 declares, I will attack Orc A. Let's say Player 1 rolls poorly on initiative and Player 2 (an archer) also declares he's attacking Orc A and rolls well for initiative, hitting the orc and killing it. As I release player 1 into initiative, I would set them up by saying something like, "You're moving in to attack the Orc and hear the twang of a bowstring only to see the Orc fall to the ground at your feet as an arrow from Player 2 perforates its temple. You have X feet of movement left and there are 2 nearby orcs (B&C) who you now notice are making a move to disrupt the wizard". So Player 1 (moving to attack), Player 2 (firing an arrow) and Orcs A-C (attempting to disrupt wizard) were all acting at the same time, but the resolution breaks it all up into manageable (gamey) chunks.

So, while the Orcs moving toward the wizard don't technically resolve their movement until their initiative order, the Player 1 can see what they are doing even though they're not resolved yet. If it were not a simultaneous (as I use the term) environment, the Player 1 would never be able to have any clue as to what those orcs were intending to do. Because their action (disrupt) the wizard would not have initiated yet.

[Treebore]

Yeah, a round is not static, there is a lot actually going on each round, just the significant stuff, what you roll for, the movement you do, if any, all happens or starts on your initiative for whatever reasons you can imagine.

If that works for your game, that's cool. But I like what the PHB says better.

"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. "

"The moment of occurrence is not necessarily equal to the
initiative roll. "

That quote actually agrees with what I am trying to say. We roll initiative for a reason, because that is when our moment of significance occurs. The rest of the round is actions of essentially meaningless significance, because we don't roll for it, we normally don't even describe it, but insignificant actions are still occurring. Feints, dodging, what ever you can imagine. On your initiative is when the "moment" occurs, your opening to get in a hit, your spell finishing, whatever.

[mbeacom]

Yeah, a round is not static, there is a lot actually going on each round, just the significant stuff, what you roll for, the movement you do, if any, all happens or starts on your initiative for whatever reasons you can imagine.

If that works for your game, that's cool. But I like what the PHB says better.

"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. "

"The moment of occurrence is not necessarily equal to the
initiative roll. "

That quote actually agrees with what I am trying to say. We roll initiative for a reason, because that is when our moment of significance occurs. The rest of the round is actions of essentially meaningless significance, because we don't roll for it, we normally don't even describe it, but insignificant actions are still occurring. Feints, dodging, what ever you can imagine. On your initiative is when the "moment" occurs, your opening to get in a hit, your spell finishing, whatever.

If you believe "the movement you do...all happens...on your initiative" and "The moment of occurrence is not necessarily equal to the initiative roll." as being the same thing, then yes, by all means we agree.

[Snoring Rock]

The best way I've found is to use the declaration paradigm that Gygax suggested in the 1st Ed DMG. The DM first silently decides the bad guys actions then, the players declare. THEN, the round starts.

(Arduin)

This makes the most sense to me. Otherwise, the caster or who-ever, who gets a low initiative, and there is no declaration; can wait to see how initiative falls or who does what, in order to make a decision, based on the outcome. Declaring before hand cuts down on metagaming and the guy with low initiative having the upper hand.

Then of course, if our game is fast and loose and this is not the granularity you like, do it as you see fit. I like the declaration.

[Arduin]

The best way I've found is to use the declaration paradigm that Gygax suggested in the 1st Ed DMG. The DM first silently decides the bad guys actions then, the players declare. THEN, the round starts.

(Arduin)

This makes the most sense to me. Otherwise, the caster or who-ever, who gets a low initiative, and there is no declaration; can wait to see how initiative falls or who does what, in order to make a decision, based on the outcome. Declaring before hand cuts down on metagaming and the guy with low initiative having the upper hand.

Bingo. That's why he made the players declare before. And, the GM follows the same rule.

[Treebore]

Yeah, a round is not static, there is a lot actually going on each round, just the significant stuff, what you roll for, the movement you do, if any, all happens or starts on your initiative for whatever reasons you can imagine.

If that works for your game, that's cool. But I like what the PHB says better.

"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. "

"The moment of occurrence is not necessarily equal to the
initiative roll. "

That quote actually agrees with what I am trying to say. We roll initiative for a reason, because that is when our moment of significance occurs. The rest of the round is actions of essentially meaningless significance, because we don't roll for it, we normally don't even describe it, but insignificant actions are still occurring. Feints, dodging, what ever you can imagine. On your initiative is when the "moment" occurs, your opening to get in a hit, your spell finishing, whatever.

If you believe "the movement you do...all happens...on your initiative" and "The moment of occurrence is not necessarily equal to the initiative roll." as being the same thing, then yes, by all means we agree.

Well, yeah, we don't agree, then. I often don't agree with how Trolls write things, its why I have my House Rules. If I followed what they wrote there, I wouldn't even bother rolling initiative. There would be no point. The whole point of initiative is knowing WHEN your significant action is going to occur. So if your rolled initiative truly doesn't matter, then why bother rolling it?

Never mind that when I take EVERYTHING written in its full context, I think the Trolls are actually saying that in terms of narrative description, your significant action would not necessarily match up with your initiative roll. Which is a long, long ways from saying your initiative roll doesn't matter at all in terms of mechanical resolution.

But if I understand what YOU interpret it all to mean, I wouldn't even bother to roll initiative, I'd just tell you when it is narrative appropriate for my actions to occur, and let you put it all together. Which I can understand, I do play things like FATE because I like that sort of thing.

[Treebore]

The best way I've found is to use the declaration paradigm that Gygax suggested in the 1st Ed DMG. The DM first silently decides the bad guys actions then, the players declare. THEN, the round starts.

(Arduin)

This makes the most sense to me. Otherwise, the caster or who-ever, who gets a low initiative, and there is no declaration; can wait to see how initiative falls or who does what, in order to make a decision, based on the outcome. Declaring before hand cuts down on metagaming and the guy with low initiative having the upper hand.

Bingo. That's why he made the players declare before. And, the GM follows the same rule.

Yeah, I decide what the bad guys are going to do before I have my players tell me what they are going to do, then I stick to it. Of course, if they are intelligent bad guys, I do allow them to change tactics as the engagement unfolds, but initially they stick to the plan I came up with. Its only fair, by keeping the CK from meta gaming the bad guys actions.

[mbeacom]

Yeah, a round is not static, there is a lot actually going on each round, just the significant stuff, what you roll for, the movement you do, if any, all happens or starts on your initiative for whatever reasons you can imagine.

If that works for your game, that's cool. But I like what the PHB says better.

"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. "

"The moment of occurrence is not necessarily equal to the
initiative roll. "

That quote actually agrees with what I am trying to say. We roll initiative for a reason, because that is when our moment of significance occurs. The rest of the round is actions of essentially meaningless significance, because we don't roll for it, we normally don't even describe it, but insignificant actions are still occurring. Feints, dodging, what ever you can imagine. On your initiative is when the "moment" occurs, your opening to get in a hit, your spell finishing, whatever.

If you believe "the movement you do...all happens...on your initiative" and "The moment of occurrence is not necessarily equal to the initiative roll." as being the same thing, then yes, by all means we agree.

Well, yeah, we don't agree, then. I often don't agree with how Trolls write things, its why I have my House Rules. If I followed what they wrote there, I wouldn't even bother rolling initiative. There would be no point. The whole point of initiative is knowing WHEN your significant action is going to occur. So if your rolled initiative truly doesn't matter, then why bother rolling it?

I disagree.
And if we disagree on the whole point of initiative, we probably won't agree on how to do it. Which is fine!
I actually like how the trolls explain/justify the use of initiative specifically, and combat rules more broadly.

"The rules are designed to organize the action of combat. Yet, as the essence of combat is
its narrative, they also enable the Castle Keeper to manipulate the rules in
support of the narrative. Narrative development is as equally important
to the game as any combat’s results."

It works well for me, but to each his own.