Actually you started the thread saying casters could game the system by delaying their own actions, so that their spells could never be ruined. Then, you moved the goalposts and started saying their spellcaster's spells could almost always be shut down by others. Then you told us we all needed more baseline clarity on the issue.gorkowskij wrote:But, I started this thread on “initiative dilemma” because I perceive (and you can certainly disagree) that a deeper issue – which also does NOT break the game – persists and seems unfair to casters
Say, what's the difference between "defining something" and providing "baseline clarity" on it? Seems kinda similar to me...gorkowskij wrote:We all know the rules can't define everything; that's why we like this game rather than one that tries to. That's why we're here and not in a D&D 2nd edition or GURPS forum. But, that's not what's at issue here. Rather, there is a need for some baseline clarity that does not expect all readers to make the same assumptions.
Personally, I don't care much about the initiative dilemma so I do not need baseline clarity in that area. I care about things like:
What are the chances for a non-thief to move silently?
What are the various rates to don and remove armor?
What armor can you sleep in?
Can you hold a torch in your shield hand?
How fast can people swim in different conditions?
But hey, I'm not expecting "baseline clarity" in the rules on on every single thing that interests me personally, because it's a basic game so I know I am expected to make some of that stuff up, and if I dislike something enough, I know I can change it. It's not like we all have to play the game exactly the same way...
I think it's cool if you want to keep talking about various initiative rules interpretations. But continually saying there's a "rules dilemma" that needs to be addressed is a bit off base in my view. I'll butt out from now on...