Alternate spell disruption?

[existence123]

Hello there,

In my BFRPG campaign, I'm using different initiative rules (roll initiative on d20, no simultaneous actions.)

I would still like to incorporate some rule covering spell casting disruption - ie., when a caster takes damage and either loses a spell or at least has to make a concentration check of some sort.

I thought I'd ask whether anyone had any ideas on how to do this without having simultaneous actions. I was considering saying that any time a cleric or MU takes damage earlier in a round and then tries to cast, there is a 5% chance per point of damage taken that the spell will fizzle. However that introduces a weird situation where just because you go earlier in a round, you are less likely to have a spell disrupted (ie., damage taken late in a previous round wouldn't count against you.)

I was also considering saying that any damage sustained within 5 initiative counts (out of the d20 roll) would count -- that way , you could "wrap around" to the previous round and eliminate the aforementioned weirdness.

Both of those ideas seem ok to me, but I thought I'd ask here to see if anyone had any other methods they like using.

Thanks!

[SmootRK]

I play with similar initiative rules when I play with my children. Just easier for them to play where each has a turn than dealing with all the simultaneous events of the d6 initiative. I have not been utilizing spell disruption for them except when someone is specifically holding back their attack in order to hit the spellcaster as they cast (which is rare so far).

That said, I think your idea has merit (up to 5 counts prior). Another idea that I have considered is just using "if caster is struck in combat prior to his turn (ie takes damage from some sort of attack/action) then he will be unable to cast a spell that round". It is tougher on caster for similar outcome, but is much simpler than trying to keep up with individual initiative results outside of determining the order. I tend to figure out the order then go from there.
This would help to make spell casters much more prudent about keeping out of melee, keeping behind front lines, out of line of sight of missile attacks, etc.

Since I use a static order after a d20 roll for initiative (across all the rounds), I have been considering allowing someone to skip their turn in order to get a re-roll of initiative (basically using their turn to try to improve their timing, perhaps with a bonus to the roll). Have not tried this out yet. A spell caster struck in combat (and thus losing their spell casting that round), would likely be the ones doing this along with those who roll very low and want to get 'ahead' of a some of the combatants.
Otherwise, it is common for many of the combatants to wait and see what opponents are doing before acting, so initiative order does not stay so statit as one would think it would with a method like this.

[Dimirag]

Using spell disruption means the casters will take time casting each spell. You can use a Paralysis Saving Throw to avoid such disruption.

There are several ways you can use spell disruption:
-As Smoot said: If the caster is hit before he act he is disrupted.
-Declaration Fase: Before acting each player must announce what his character is attempting to do.
-Casting Segments: Once the caster announces he is going to cast a spell he must spend one segment per spell level casting it.

[seandon4]

Hi existence123:

That's an interesting idea.

I also use d20. Did you say you are rolling d20 each round or just once for the entire encounter?

1) If the former, a declaration phase is pretty simple way to go.

2) For the latter, I've considered using a saving throw (as mentioned), as a sort of "concentration check." If an enemy is holding to disrupt the caster but the caster casts anyway, then saving throw. If an enemy holds to attacks at a range (missile), then maybe just require that the caster be hit upon casting for disruption. In this case the problem with requiring a hit while in melee (as opposed to a save) is some spell casting classes may have really high armor class, but really only need be distracted for spell disruption.

I've considered taking it a step further and saying that casting while engaged requires a save as well, but then that gets into the realm of "attacks of opportunity" complexity and then do we do the same for archers shooting arrows while engaged too? EDIT: maybe just -2 to hit partial cover if missile while engaged.

3) Trouble is, CCs are not very "basicy" and more "roll play ish." But I've actually had the opportunity to try the init re-roll method (take turn to re-roll init) however found it to be kind of cumbersome and no one ever bothered to remember to use it.

I think Castles & Crusades has the rule that every spell cast takes 1 round to complete, so from the time you cast to the time of your next turn, if you're hit then it's disrupted. I like that idea as it's simple, but it means spellcasting is no longer instantaneous. Segments are an interesting idea too though.

[existence123]

Thanks for all three very helpful replies!

Regarding segments - is a segment just a round long? So, if you wish to cast a third level spell, it takes three segments which equals three rounds?

Sean, I like the idea you bring up from C&C. Very simple and elegant - but that certainly would make it tougher on spell casters.

I agree that concentration checks aren't very basicy. The whole reason I want to use them is because I fear that not using any sort of Cc/disruption rule will favor spell casters too much. I am tempted to ignore them altogether.

Thanks again for the help !

[Dimirag]

A segment is a part of the round. A round consist of many segments as faces has the die used for initiative: a d6 initiative system has 6 segments, a d20 one has 20. In your case each round has 20 segments, if the caster rolls a 12 on the d20 and add +1 from DEX he will act on segment 13 (12+1) if he says he will cast a level 3 spell he will spend 3 segments casting and will cast the spell on segment 10 (13-3).

[seandon4]

I agree that concentration checks aren't very basicy. The whole reason I want to use them is because I fear that not using any sort of Cc/disruption rule will favor spell casters too much.

Ah, but that was merely a disclaimer. I for one am not opposed to CCs. I've even played in OD&D groups that use them. Regards.

[Solomoriah]

I'm curious... why don't you like simultaneous actions?

[seandon4]

I'm curious... why don't you like simultaneous actions?

I can't speak for existence123, but my groups use grids and miniatures, so simultaneous actions seem rather cumbersome in those cases -- maybe it just takes getting used to.

But the BF Combat with Floor Plans supplement talks about this very issue and suggests using d20 instead in order to avoid simultaneous actions. Also, re-rolling init every round (while I like the randomness) always seems like an awful lot of rolling in games with lots of players. Don't get me wrong, I like individual init.

[existence123]

I'm curious... why don't you like simultaneous actions?

Pretty much what Sean said - we use minis and a grid, and just having discrete PC and monster turns keeps it simple for us (and admittedly more familiar, too.)

It's possible that by omitting simultaneous actions but trying to come up with ways to keep spell disruption I'm eliminating one complexity in favor of another.

I guess it boils down to familiarity.