Multiple Attack Routines and Spell Casting

[Matthew-]

A spin off initiative thread from WTF? Rule's you'd forgotten for years, the subject of this thread is not so much about what the actual rule is, but the good and bad points of having fighters with multiple attack routines automatically strike before spells are cast. For my part, I personally think it really helps make fighters a viable force to be contended with at high levels. Anyway, the story so far:

This is the first place I've ever seen turning undead or spell-casting considered an attack routine. When taken in conjunction with the paragraph above about high level fighters going FIRST and LAST, it means that when a fighter with a two attack round attacks a caster, he always gets to attack before the spell can go off, you don't even look at what segment he goes in or his weapon speed factor.

That is how I play it.

Yeah, that's how we play it too.

A fighter using a melee (or thrown weapon) during his two attack round automatically goes before and then after his opponent's action, regardless of weapon speed, intiative roll, casting time, etc.

In the case of dueling fighters with 2 attacks per round then we use the initiative and ties go to higher dexterity reaction adjustment.

As a spellcaster you definitely do not want to be casting spells in melee against a fighter with two attacks per round.

I was aware of the rule but I would never have the guts to try it on any group of players - they would laugh me from the table as I would anyone who tried to pull it on me. It's yet another contradiction/omission in the initiative system (and more evidence to me that multiple manuscripts/versions of manuscripts were edited together by mistake). Apart from anything else it implies that high level magic users should never leave the house for fear of meeting a high level fighter. It's tough enough being a magic user, there's no need to make it impossible.


I believe this and the list on p61 to be left overs from before multiple attacks were considered for high level fighters.

Could be, but one of the big reactions I had to reading the Combat chapter a year or two ago was the question of how multiple attacks interact with spell-casting. It goes into great deal to explain how weapon speed factor and the initiative result compare to the casting time, but what about attack numbers two, three, four? Well, now I've found it is explained. If a fighter has 3 attacks, one attack goes first, one attack compares speed factor, and the third goes last. At least it is consistent, and you are right boy is it deadly! I guess that's why mirror image is such a great buff.

I tried that but it's just murder on magic users, and ironically it's harder on high level ones than low because low level magic users aren't encountering multiple attacks that often. Unless you allow specialisation, in which case you may forget about being a magic user completely, IMO. Even a cleric would be more fun

Depending on how you play it, it is also a great reason to use magic items rather than spells.

I don't see, Matt, that magic items help since they also get screwed by the same rules, although I suppose the item's attack is not spoilt by a successful hit.

Exactly so. That is also presumably why the DMG recommends magic items over spells in a melee situation.

When I play high-level magic-users, I LOVE the repulsion spell so that enemies can't get up close. It doesn't solve arrows & bolts, but if you enforce the DMG rules about not being able to target a specific individual, then summoned monsters gathered around your magic-user does.

Well, that's true regardless of the rule we're discussing - spells can always be disrupted. The issue is how far one should take the disadvantages of spell casting in melee. As levels increase and fighters' attack ability (generally) outstrips magic users' ACs it seems clear to me that we would go from 1st level magic users having a 50-50ish chance of getting a spell off to 14th level magic users having almost no chance. It's fair to say that in most adventures the magic user will have bodyguards of some sort or other, but I'm not desirous of a situation where a player who wants to run a solo city adventure with their mage can't so much as risk nipping down to the shops without a ring of henchmen.

The rule Ken pointed out does have its attractions, which is why I did give it a try, but unless I'm missing something it makes magic users very much second class citizens when it comes to anything dangerous.

Well, this is becoming a thread on its own so I'll leave it there for now, unless someone else wants to start a new initiative thread (hey, it must be almost a fortnight since the last one!)

Heh, come to think of it... (gosh darnit I love initiative!)

SPELL CASTING DURING MELEE
These functions are fully detailed in PLAYERS HANDBOOK. Their commencement
is dictated by initiative determination as with other attack
forms, but their culmination is subject to the stated casting time. Both commencement
and/or completion can occur simultaneously with missile discharge,
magical device attacks, and/or turning undead. Being struck by
something during casting will spoil the spell.

So if the caster doesn't start casting until "initiative determination", then perhaps the automatic first attack that a 2 attack fighter gets comes before the spell caster starts casting. You could interpret this as saying the 2 attack fighter has a choice with his first attack. He can either attack first without regard to initiative, but with no chance of spoiling the spell, or wait for the caster to start, and risk losing initiative.

Okay, okay, this should probably get its own thread. But fun stuff!

I don't see the big deal.

If you've made it to 14th level as a magic-user chances are you've figured out how to stay out of melee. Fly, Levitate, Slow, the often maligned Blink spell, etc.

Besides, as levels increase magic-users' lightning bolts outstrip fighters' hit points.

And away we go!

[Nagora]

Just as a point of order before the big kick-off, does anyone have any idea about how Gary ran this situation?

[Matthew-]

Good question; the best I could find was this, which I think is from EnWorld:

MORE SPELLCASTING & INITIATIVE

Q. When attacking a spell caster, the DMG gives two methods for determining if the attack or the spell occur first, either the segment indicated by the initiative roll, or a method based on speed factor. What about in situations where the attacker has multiple attack routines, like an archer, or a fighter with two attacks? Will the first attack occur first regardless of casting time, or does the spell caster have the normal chance of getting his spell off before the first attack occurs?

A. A spell caster loosing a one-segment spell such as magic missile is pretty hard to stop. All of my mage PCs have spells of one segment casting time for tight situations. The physical attack must occur on the segment before a spell is cast to disrupt it--unless concentration is required to keep the spell going. Multiple attacks don't matter, as the first happens on the segment of the round indicated, then another follows thereafter. So if the first of multiple attacks occurs before the spell is cast, and it hits, that's the one that matters most. Of course the second attack might be even more important, such as one that kills the spell-caster...

This is of course subject to the usual caveats about Gygax occasionally giving multiple contradictory answers to the same questions at different times, etcetera. Noticeably the above approach is exactly how it works in second edition...

Also:

SURPRISE & INITIATIVE

Q.: I wanted to pick your brain for some knowledge of the Surprise and Initiative systems in AD&D 1st Edition. Here are my thoughts on how it works, would you mind pointing out there errors and clarifying some of my points that may be a little off ?
Thanks in advance for your time!

Surprise:
Both sides roll surprise....If one side is surprised, and the other is not...The score of the higher is subtracted from the lower to determine how many segments the losing side is surprised, based on the table in both the PHB and the DMG.
If both sides are surprised, the same occurs to determine which side (if any) gets actions before the other, and how many segments of action the "winning" side gets.
During surprise, characters can get a full round's worth of action in only a segment's time - and possibly double the rate of fire for missile weapons.

Initiative:
Spell casting is done independently from initiative. A spell's segment determines where in the round the commencement of the spell takes place, in regards to weapon attacks and other spell casters. Spell casting must be announced prior to rolling for initiative. A character attacking a spell caster may lose initiative, but still complete his attack before the spell is cast. Subtract the fighter's sides initiative roll from the weapon speed of the fighter's weapon. If the result is higher than the spell's segment time, the attack takes place AFTER the spell commences. If the result is the same as the casting time, the attack is simultaneous with the casting of the spell. If the result is lower than the spell's casting segment, the attack happens before the spell can be cast, in which case a successful, or "non-saved" attack causes the spell to fail.

Other than the above scenario, weapon speed is only used when simultaneous initiative is rolled after the initial round of combat (A weapon's speed does not apply to the initial round of combat), in which case it determines which opponent strikes first. The faster weapon speed is then compared to the slower to determine if the faster weapon gets additional (Extra) attacks before the slower weapon gets it's attack. If the weapon speed of the slower weapon is at least twice as much (or 5 factors more) the speed of the faster weapon, the character with the faster weapon gets two attacks. If it is 10 or more, the character with the faster weapon gets two attacks before, and one attack simultaneous with the slower-weaponed character.

In the case of a weapon set against charge, the initiative is automatically given to the character with the weapon set against an onrushing opponent. A fighter able to strike more than once during a round will attack once before opponents with only a single attack. A fighter with multiple attacks fighting another fighter with multiple attacks uses initiative to tell who attacks first.

A: Those are some lengthy and very well-phrased questions. Thanks for the latter, as it made answering easy.

Surprise: Your understanding is correct.

Initiative: Yes, as the spell-caster announces intent first, that means he is commencing the activation of the spell at the beginning of the round, so initiative does not affect that. As for the rest you are also correct.

Weapon Speed: Where initiative is equal the longer weapon strikes first in the initial round. We seldom used this rule [extra attacks], but yes, that is correct.

Weapon Set Against a Charge: The exception to this would be where the onrushing opponent has a longer weapon--a lancer versus an opponent with a short pole-arm or spear of 8' or less length.

Multiple Attacks: Yes, that is correct, but when two opponents with two attacks each are concerned, the one with initiative strikes first, then the slower responds, the initiative holder attacks a second time, followed by the second attack of the slower combatant. A third attack by both follows that sequence. If only one had a third attack it would follow the last of the second exchange.

[Kent]

So if the caster doesn't start casting until "initiative determination", then perhaps the automatic first attack that a 2 attack fighter gets comes before the spell caster starts casting. You could interpret this as saying the 2 attack fighter has a choice with his first attack. He can either attack first without regard to initiative, but with no chance of spoiling the spell, or wait for the caster to start, and risk losing initiative.

That's very observant, his first attack would not disrupt the spell. Also the point at which the MU begins to cast his spell is squeezed towards the middle of the round which does make it more likely he will be disrupted by the fighter's second attack than if the fighter only had one attack. Unless of course the fighter's 2 attacks come in segments: 1,2 and 9,10 in which case the MU is probably less likely to be disrupted than against a fighter with 1 attack.

I don't allow an MU to cast while being attacked though I'm not sure how fair that is.

Nagora. I thought from a previous thread that for MU on fighter in melee range that you did not consider the MU to have any chance of getting a spell off while being menaced with a weapon, [or was considered helpless, or was attacked once per segment., or something like that]. Do I misremember?

[Matthew-]

So if the caster doesn't start casting until "initiative determination", then perhaps the automatic first attack that a 2 attack fighter gets comes before the spell caster starts casting. You could interpret this as saying the 2 attack fighter has a choice with his first attack. He can either attack first without regard to initiative, but with no chance of spoiling the spell, or wait for the caster to start, and risk losing initiative.

That's very observant, his first attack would not disrupt the spell. Also the point at which the MU begins to cast his spell is squeezed towards the middle of the round which does make it more likely he will be disrupted by the fighter's second attack than if the fighter only had one attack. Unless of course the fighter's 2 attacks come in segments: 1,2 and 9,10 in which case the MU is probably less likely to be disrupted than against a fighter with 1 attack.

I don't allow an MU to cast while being attacked though I'm not sure how fair that is.

That aspect of the discussion tends to go back and forth on two points, I think:

1) Winning initiative means that a character can strike first, but need not strike on the segment "0" or "1".

2) A magician begins spell casting at the beginning of the round.

Neither of these points need be true or false, but they will affect how multiple attack routines interact with spell casting.

[shimrod]

No way in hell I'd ever give a fighter with multiple attacks the first attack automatically (barring a Scimitar of Speed or something). It makes no sense, and is unnecessary. Apart from the level 1 spells, they all take time....extremely long periods of time in some cases. There will be plenty of opportunities to thwart and disrupt spells as they are being cast.

[Matthew-]

No way in hell I'd ever give a fighter with multiple attacks the first attack automatically (barring a Scimitar of Speed or something). It makes no sense, and is unnecessary. Apart from the level 1 spells, they all take time....extremely long periods of time in some cases. There will be plenty of opportunities to thwart and disrupt spells as they are being cast.

You mean generally, or just in the case of spells? It's not like it's a low level ability at any rate, a fighter has to 7th level to get even 3/2 (barring specialisation).

[Greg Ellis]

A fighter who wins initiative should always have a chance to disrupt a spellcaster. Any system which provides a different result simply seems nonsensical to me.

We play that casting completes at segment number (initiative roll + casting time). Whether it commences at the beginning of the round, or on the segment indicated by the initiative roll is not particularly important to us. Any caster who is hurt before completing his spell will not complete the spell - that's the rule we use.

We also play that fighters with multiple attacks who are already in melee get both of their attacks on the segment indicated by their initiative roll. Any other arrangement seems unnecessarily complicated, to me at least. If the fighter needs to cover some ground (at a charge, obviously) before attacking, then his attacks might come a little later.

Ties (i.e. multiple actions that happen in the same segment) are considered to happen in the same segment, so it's perfectly possible for a pair of opposed fighters to kill each other. Saves a lot of time that might be spent comparing weapon speeds and similar trivia.

It's certainly not as complex a system as some prefer, but it works well for us.

[shimrod]

No way in hell I'd ever give a fighter with multiple attacks the first attack automatically (barring a Scimitar of Speed or something). It makes no sense, and is unnecessary. Apart from the level 1 spells, they all take time....extremely long periods of time in some cases. There will be plenty of opportunities to thwart and disrupt spells as they are being cast.

You mean generally, or just in the case of spells? It's not like it's a low level ability at any rate, a fighter has to 7th level to get even 3/2 (barring specialisation).

Just in the case of spells. In theory, the reason mages are so gimpy at lower levels is their theoretical superpower at high levels. But that's already constrained by huge casting times. Fighters can still interrupt these long spells with comparative ease.

Clerics I don't worry about so much - since they can wear any armor, it won't be a auto-hit even if the fighter gets the first attack. But for consistency I have it apply to all spells.

[ken-do-nim]

Good question; the best I could find was this, which I think is from EnWorld:
MORE SPELLCASTING & INITIATIVE

A: Those are some lengthy and very well-phrased questions. Thanks for the latter, as it made answering easy.

Surprise: Your understanding is correct.

Initiative: Yes, as the spell-caster announces intent first, that means he is commencing the activation of the spell at the beginning of the round, so initiative does not affect that. As for the rest you are also correct.

Weapon Speed: Where initiative is equal the longer weapon strikes first in the initial round. We seldom used this rule [extra attacks], but yes, that is correct.

Weapon Set Against a Charge: The exception to this would be where the onrushing opponent has a longer weapon--a lancer versus an opponent with a short pole-arm or spear of 8' or less length.

Multiple Attacks: Yes, that is correct, but when two opponents with two attacks each are concerned, the one with initiative strikes first, then the slower responds, the initiative holder attacks a second time, followed by the second attack of the slower combatant. A third attack by both follows that sequence. If only one had a third attack it would follow the last of the second exchange.

This is cracking me up. Actually, the unnamed poster is wrong about surprise, but Gary said he was right. If one side is not surprised and the other is, you don't do any subtraction, you just look at the surprise die roll to determine the number of segments. Then there's the weapon speeds. The guy says that on a tie, you can get extra attacks due to weapon speed disparity which Gary says is correct, yet our illustrious moderator Scotty would say that Gary would say otherwise

[Nazim]

Actually, the unnamed poster is wrong about surprise, but Gary said he was right. If one side is not surprised and the other is, you don't do any subtraction, you just look at the surprise die roll to determine the number of segments.

My precise reaction. The resolution described by the unnamed poster is valid for when both parties are surprised. At least that's what I gleaned from the books.

[Matthew-]

This is cracking me up. Actually, the unnamed poster is wrong about surprise, but Gary said he was right. If one side is not surprised and the other is, you don't do any subtraction, you just look at the surprise die roll to determine the number of segments. Then there's the weapon speeds. The guy says that on a tie, you can get extra attacks due to weapon speed disparity which Gary says is correct, yet our illustrious moderator Scotty would say that Gary would say otherwise

Here are the links: Surpise & Initiative and More Spell Casting and Initiative.

My precise reaction. The resolution described by the unnamed poster is valid for when both parties are surprised. At least that's what I gleaned from the books.

Just one more example of Gygax giving contradictory answers on different occasions. I actually do not think he is misremembering, rather I think he did it different ways over the years.

[Stormcrow]

Guys. Gary would just say whatever he thought was a good answer whenever asked about the rules. He would just write whatever he thought was a good rule when he was writing the DMG. There was never an absolutely "right" way to interpret the text, because it was just some things that Gary happened to write at that time.

[Matthew-]

Guys. Gary would just say whatever he thought was a good answer whenever asked about the rules. He would just write whatever he thought was a good rule when he was writing the DMG. There was never an absolutely "right" way to interpret the text, because it was just some things that Gary happened to write at that time.

Exactly so. Anyway, after that short excursion, back to the question at hand!

[Nagora]

Nagora. I thought from a previous thread that for MU on fighter in melee range that you did not consider the MU to have any chance of getting a spell off while being menaced with a weapon, [or was considered helpless, or was attacked once per segment., or something like that]. Do I misremember?

Partly: I do (as a houserule) treat a magic user with absolutely no defenders as being surprised for as long as s/he is attempting to cast in the face of an attacker.

However, it is important to remember that a caster is not necessarily being directly attacked by their target. Most of the time, IME, casters are targeting either their own side with hastes or heals or bless etc, or some enemy target such as when warp wood is used against archers. Most of the time we're asking if the spell caster can interceed on behalf of his side rather than just saving his own skin.

I asked about Gary in the hope that someone at his table saw what he actually did. More from the point of view that he was so experienced that it may give some insight into what he had found worked rather than as evidence of what was actually in the DMG.

[Kent]

However, it is important to remember that a caster is not necessarily being directly attacked by their target.

Ha. No, those cases I do remember!

I asked about Gary in the hope that someone at his table saw what he actually did. More from the point of view that he was so experienced that it may give some insight into what he had found worked rather than as evidence of what was actually in the DMG.

I see. He or someone who has investigated each method at length could help. Taking a step back the choice of alternatives for MU casting in initiative might simply reflect the sympathy a DM shows for his MU player. I think the alternatives could be ordered by the extent to which they favour the MU.

[ken-do-nim]

Could be, but one of the big reactions I had to reading the Combat chapter a year or two ago was the question of how multiple attacks interact with spell-casting. It goes into great deal to explain how weapon speed factor and the initiative result compare to the casting time, but what about attack numbers two, three, four? Well, now I've found it is explained. If a fighter has 3 attacks, one attack goes first, one attack compares speed factor, and the third goes last. At least it is consistent, and you are right boy is it deadly! I guess that's why mirror image is such a great buff.

I tried that but it's just murder on magic users, and ironically it's harder on high level ones than low because low level magic users aren't encountering multiple attacks that often. Unless you allow specialisation, in which case you may forget about being a magic user completely, IMO. Even a cleric would be more fun

I don't see, Matt, that magic items help since they also get screwed by the same rules, although I suppose the item's attack is not spoilt by a successful hit.

I'm not so sure it is harder on high level magic-users than low level ones. At 1st level, magic-users will encounter bowmen and dagger throwers with 2 attack routines per round and dart throwers with 3 attack routines per round. So even the common bowman will always win initiative against a spell-caster or any other single action combatant. The high level magic-user at least has tricks like project image, fly, protection from normal missiles, and the aforementioned repulsion to stay out of melee. That is if you equate rate of fire with attack routines. Edit: which I guess you probably shouldn't, because otherwise the bow specialist's arrow nocked ability is not so exceptional.

[SirAllen]

If a fighter has two attacks, he attacks first and last against others in melee. Why should his attack against a spellcaster be not subject to the weapon speed factor/ casting time/ init die rules? It is, in my game, then he gets another attack after. Defy me in the rules! You can't.

Missiles? Somewhat different. Init die minus dex bonus, compared to casting time. Second bowshots come later.

Why do you guys make initiative so hard? You'd think the rules were unclear or something. Can clerics use the Hammer, Lucerne?

[Nagora]

By way of summary, this is how I see the system in the DMG (the guy with the weapon is the "attacker" and the other person is the "actor", who may be doing something other than spell casting):

1. If weapon speeds are not being used, the weapon's first attack comes on the segment indicated by the actor's init die. If this is itself a tie (ie, an init roll of 3 against an action time of 3 segments) then the init dice break the tie or confirm it.
2. If weapons speeds are being used, the weapons's first attack comes on the segment equal to the difference between the losing initiative die and the weapon speed. If initiative is tied then the attack segment is simply the weapon's speed rating. Some feel that this rule is only used for attackers who lost initiative; I'm happier with applying it in every case.

The issue with this is that it is left unstated when the second or third attack comes, assuming that the first one doesn't do the trick.

The big attraction - to me, anyway - to the suggested reading is that there is no dispute about ordering of multiple attacks - they just slot into the normal order of things.

The downsides are:

• Casting time becomes fairly unimportant. It becomes hard to justify, for example, making a spell like power word kill 9th level as its chief claim to such high level is its speed - speed would count for nothing against many opponents that an archmage will face.
• Entering into a room with enemy fighters in it becomes madness for magic users at high levels - indeed anything where encounter distance might be constricted becomes much more dangerous. I see this as a major gimping of the class and moreso than for clerics who can wear decent armour.
• It erodes one of the differences between magic users and clerics in that the latter's long casting times no longer matter much one way or the other at higher levels where multiple attacks by opponents are more common.
• It boosts high level fighters even further beyond the combat abilities of clerics who already, IMO, struggle to justify their presence in front line combat beyond about 6th level and this is a major reason that I find experienced players are reluctant to take the class. Combining this with the fact that players will know that high level clerics will also face automatically losing initiative both in melee (where they never get multiple attacks) and spell casting makes me wonder if anyone would ever touch the class again.

Perhaps we could combine both views: items 1 and 2 above define the first attack and should it be before action completion then the action is slotted into the normal scheme for determining when the next attack occurs. Clearly, if the first attack is after the action is completed then so are all subsequent attacks.

For example: Attacker with 3 attacks from a halberd (speed 9) against a cleric casting cure critical wounds (8 seg)*. Attacker rolls a 2 and the cleric rolls a 6. The attack comes on segment 7 (difference between 2 and 9), before spell completion. The second attack comes in the middle of the sequence, which is where we now put the spell. Since the cleric won the initiative roll the spell comes next, then the other two attacks.

Example 2: Fighter with 2 attacks from a scimitar (speed 4) against a magic user casting magic missile. Fighter rolls 5, magic user rolls 6. Attack comes on segment 1 (difference between 4 and 5) which ties with the spell; the fighter lost initiative so both attacks come after the spell.

Example 3: A hasted Remorhaz (no weapon speed) against a casting of teleport (2 segments). If the caster rolls a 1 then the first attack comes before the spell; on a roll of 2 the first attack is afterwards unless the remorhaz also rolled a 2. In either case, the second attack comes after the spell.

Well, I think I can live with that.

Can clerics use the Hammer, Lucerne?

NO!


*Remember that the caster is not necessarily being directly attacked.

[Matthew-]

If a fighter has two attacks, he attacks first and last against others in melee. Why should his attack against a spellcaster be not subject to the weapon speed factor/ casting time/ init die rules? It is, in my game, then he gets another attack after. Defy me in the rules! You can't.

Missiles? Somewhat different. Init die minus dex bonus, compared to casting time. Second bowshots come later.

I am actually having trouble parsing up your sentence here; so... do fighters with two attacks automatically make their first before a spell caster completes his spell in your game? If not, and question is why should they, I would say for the same reasons he attacks first and last in melee [i.e. he's a bad ass]. I apply the same rules to missile weapons, as "fire rate" seems the same to me as "attack rate".

Why do you guys make initiative so hard? You'd think the rules were unclear or something. Can clerics use the Hammer, Lucerne?

NO!

Of course, as long as it is not edged or pointed, just like a hammer.

[Nagora]

I apply the same rules to missile weapons, as "fire rate" seems the same to me as "attack rate".

I do likewise, although I'm fairly sure it's not BtB. I see it as another reason not to impliment the interpretation you're using but since I'm not sure it's BtB I don't think it helps clarify anything.

Why do you guys make initiative so hard? You'd think the rules were unclear or something. Can clerics use the Hammer, Lucerne?

NO!

Of course, as long as it is not edged or pointed, just like a hammer.

Ah, I remmeber the day when every cleric player's eyes would light up as their finger ran over the Lucerne Hammer entry on the weapons table. "I'll take THAT!" they would cry, full of youthful enthusiasm. How crushed they were when they saw their first illustration of the pointy death-dealer in a Dover book.

Truth is, I allow edged and pointed weapons if it suits the deity. Clerics suck quite enough in combat without making it worse for them. In most cases, where such a weapon is allowed I make it their holy symbol too so that using something else has a downside. Odin and spears is the example that most often comes up.

[apprentice]

I am actually having trouble parsing up your sentence here; so... do fighters with two attacks automatically make their first before a spell caster completes his spell in your game? If not, and question is why should they, I would say for the same reasons he attacks first and last in melee [i.e. he's a bad ass]. I apply the same rules to missile weapons, as "fire rate" seems the same to me as "attack rate".

I agree with you completely, right up to the missile fire - which I don't think is an "attack routine."

All the wording in the paragraph "Initiative For Creatures With Multiple Attack Routines" implies to me melee attacks, as missile fire is covered a few paragraphs later.

MISSILE DISCHARGE
This is the usual loosing of arrows and bolts, hurling of axes, hammers, javelins, darts, etc. It also includes the hurling of rocks by giants, manticore tail spike throwing, and so on. It can occur simultaneously with magical device attacks, spell casting, or turning of undead.

Bold for emphasis. It doesn't say that missile fire goes first and last -- and everyone who can use a bow gets 2/1 attacks, which I really don't feel should split the attacks of their opponent like a fighter's 3/2 attack routine.

Also interesting from the same paragraph, which I've never seen applied:

Magical device and spell attacks can negate the effects of or damage some missiles, i.e., arrows fired off simultaneously with the dischorge of a fireball spell, or a javelin hurled into an ice storm, or a dwarven hammer tossed at on opponent struck by a fireball or lightning bolt. As referee you will have to determine the final results according to circumstances. This is not difficult using the ITEM SAVING THROW table.

[Nagora]

I am actually having trouble parsing up your sentence here; so... do fighters with two attacks automatically make their first before a spell caster completes his spell in your game? If not, and question is why should they, I would say for the same reasons he attacks first and last in melee [i.e. he's a bad ass]. I apply the same rules to missile weapons, as "fire rate" seems the same to me as "attack rate".

I agree with you completely, right up to the missile fire - which I don't think is an "attack routine."

Actually, I think you do. An "attack routine" is a set of attacks which come together, as opposed to multiple attacks which are spread out in the round. As I understand it the DMG and you assume that two arrows fired from a bow is a single attack routine whereas Matt and I count it as two separate attacks. I'm also more liberal than Matt in classifying certain monsters as having multiple attacks in the same way as a high level fighter - for example I count trolls as having three attacks rather than 1 attack routine with three components. This may be having an effect on my support for screwing over spell casters but I strongly suspect that it is what was intended by the rules.

[Hawk]

I'm glad this topic came up as it has always been a bit hazy for me. Well I think multiple attacks and routines which have multiple attacks are something different:

DMG pg 63: "Note that a routine is the attack or attacks usual to the creature concerned, i.e. a weapon (or weapons) for a character, a claw/claw/bite routine for a bear (with incidental damage assessed as it occurs - the hug, for example. A 12th level fighter is allowed attack routines twice in every odd numbered melee round..."

My emphasis added. This seems to imply to me that a bow's multiple attacks are part of the same routine and therefore are not divided up like a fighter with multiple attack routines against a single attack routine opponent is divided up. Other monsters with multiple attacks which are not listed as being part of a routine I would rule as a fighter.

This would also imply to me that it is not clear whether all multiple attacks of a single routine could come before a spell is cast if the caster lost initiative? Or also if the spell caster won initiative but they were using a slow spell beaten by the relevant initiative roll do both attacks of the same routine get a chance to spoil??? It does seem to be indicating that attacks from multiple attack routines (claw/claw etc) come at the same time.

As to whether fighters with multiple attack routines instantly getting a first attack against a spell caster, I feel that the descriptions both in the DMG and the PH both indicate that it is talking about melee combat. If not, does a fighter not only automatically get an attack against a spellcaster, but also against a bowmen outside of closing distance all the time too? By applying the automatic first attack interpretation, then there are no guidelines provided as to how a fighter would go against a missile user with only a single attack routine.

Love to hear your thoughts on this.

[apprentice]

Actually, I think you do. An "attack routine" is a set of attacks which come together, as opposed to multiple attacks which are spread out in the round. As I understand it the DMG and you assume that two arrows fired from a bow is a single attack routine whereas Matt and I count it as two separate attacks. I'm also more liberal than Matt in classifying certain monsters as having multiple attacks in the same way as a high level fighter - for example I count trolls as having three attacks rather than 1 attack routine with three components. This may be having an effect on my support for screwing over spell casters but I strongly suspect that it is what was intended by the rules.

Huh.. ok. I guess I'm confused by the definition of attack routine. And I'm not sure who I'm agreeing with anymore.

Regardless, we play it as follows: On the odd numbered rounds that they are in combat a fighter with 3/2 attacks gets to strike first in the round and then again after his opponent's action. A bow user who fires 2/1 gets to fire 2 shots based off his initiative roll modified by his dexterity adjustment.

It is pretty difficult to cast a spell while in melee during an odd numbered round.

[Stormcrow]

Why do you guys make initiative so hard? You'd think the rules were unclear or something.

Please tell me you were trying to be funny.

[PaladinesAngel]

i also read the claw claw bite as one attack routine with multiple attacks in it rather than more than one attack routine.

I am also in the yes multiple attack routines are first attack routine goes first in the round with opponents who only have one routine, be it melee, missile or spell casting or whatever else they plan to do.

High level spell casters have their own protections for avoiding the disruption. Clerics and druids have possible magic armour and running protections such as wall of fire, barkskin, protection from evil 10' radius etc. Magic-users and illusionists have other magics, blur, invisibility, projected image, walls of fire, stoneskins, improved invisibility, conjured allies to intervene.

If a high level wizard or spellbinder isnt running around invisibile or protected from fighters in some magical way they get what they pay for IMO.

Its what makes fighters have some advantage over spell hurlers. I wouldnt take it away from them. If a solo wizard was wandering around town instead of flying invisibly whilst being stoneskined and volleys then thems the breaks.

[Matthew-]

I do likewise, although I'm fairly sure it's not BtB. I see it as another reason not to impliment the interpretation you're using but since I'm not sure it's BtB I don't think it helps clarify anything.

Yeah, bow attack rates are pretty powerful in AD&D, but I have waxed lyrical about that before.

Ah, I remember the day when every cleric player's eyes would light up as their finger ran over the Lucerne Hammer entry on the weapons table. "I'll take THAT!" they would cry, full of youthful enthusiasm. How crushed they were when they saw their first illustration of the pointy death-dealer in a Dover book.

Truth is, I allow edged and pointed weapons if it suits the deity. Clerics suck quite enough in combat without making it worse for them. In most cases, where such a weapon is allowed I make it their holy symbol too so that using something else has a downside. Odin and spears is the example that most often comes up.

I also fall into the camp of allowing clerics to use any weapon; I just enjoy defending the lucerne hammer position, as you may have noted...

I'm glad this topic came up as it has always been a bit hazy for me. Well I think multiple attacks and routines which have multiple attacks are something different:

DMG pg 63: "Note that a routine is the attack or attacks usual to the creature concerned, i.e. a weapon (or weapons) for a character, a claw/claw/bite routine for a bear (with incidental damage assessed as it occurs - the hug, for example. A 12th level fighter is allowed attack routines twice in every odd numbered melee round..."

My emphasis added. This seems to imply to me that a bow's multiple attacks are part of the same routine and therefore are not divided up like a fighter with multiple attack routines against a single attack routine opponent is divided up. Other monsters with multiple attacks which are not listed as being part of a routine I would rule as a fighter.

I am just quoting Hawk here, but this applies to the foregoing comments from Apprentice and Nagora as well. Basically, there is a really long thread around here somewhere where Nagora, Runecrow and I went into excruciating detail about the evidence for attack routines and attack rates: Multiple Fighter Attacks and Multiple Rounds. The most significant passage in the corpus is likely the haste spell, which multiplies attack routines and is described as increasing attack rate. The outcome of the discussion, if I recall correctly, was that you could end up reading it validly several ways, but none that made "perfect" sense. Likely this also has to do with the "written orders" versus "move/countermove" methods of resolving a round, which are equally supported up until AD&D, and end up both appear to varying degrees in the book.

In almost all cases monsters have one attack routine composed of several discrete attacks. Their rate of attack can be increased via a haste spell. Fighters also increase in attack rate and can wield a second weapon to increase the number of attacks they make in a single routine. By the time of Unearthed Arcana, it is pretty certain that "fire rate" is the same thing as "attack rate" from looking at the specialist attack rate table.

This would also imply to me that it is not clear whether all multiple attacks of a single routine could come before a spell is cast if the caster lost initiative? Or also if the spell caster won initiative but they were using a slow spell beaten by the relevant initiative roll do both attacks of the same routine get a chance to spoil??? It does seem to be indicating that attacks from multiple attack routines (claw/claw etc) come at the same time.

A "claw/claw" is one routine composed of multiple attacks. If either hit before the completion of the spell, it is spoilt.

As to whether fighters with multiple attack routines instantly getting a first attack against a spell caster, I feel that the descriptions both in the DMG and the PH both indicate that it is talking about melee combat. If not, does a fighter not only automatically get an attack against a spell caster, but also against a bowmen outside of closing distance all the time too? By applying the automatic first attack interpretation, then there are no guidelines provided as to how a fighter would go against a missile user with only a single attack routine.

Not really sure what you are talking about here. The fighter has two choices 1) close, 2) charge. In the former case he doesn't get to attack, in the latter case who gets to attack first is determined by the "first strike" rule [i.e. weapon length]. Some interpretations measure the distance between combatants and divide it into movement rate to find the segment on which an attack is delivered from a charge.

[apprentice]

Some interpretations measure the distance between combatants and divide it into movement rate to find the segment on which an attack is delivered from a charge.

Oh, oh we do that! Usually with miniatures on a hex-mat.

[Matthew-]

Oh, oh we do that! Usually with miniatures on a hex-mat.

Yeah, we do it to, though typically without miniatures. It makes pretty good sense, even if it does not exactly appear in the rules.