Rhialto wrote:You forgot condition 3: the opponent(s) must be in a position to attack the spell caster.
So it is not quite as bad, unless there are a lot of enemies with missile weapons (which also need an actual hit to disrupt).
What I don't like about the RAW is that it means a single melee fighter up against a spellcaster has an incentive not to attack if he wins initiative.
That is counter-intuitive to me.
Technically, in the rules as written a ranged attack does not need to hit.
gorkowskij wrote:The initiative dilemma poses a larger problem. With the rules as written, a semi-intelligent (or smarter) foe can almost always shut down spell casters. You don’t need dueling spell casters, and the problem persists even when large groups engage each other. Only two things are required: 1) a foe smart enough to recognize a spell caster, and 2) an initiative die roll greater than the spell caster’s. Condition one is quite common. A good many creatures (starting with goblins) are smart enough to recognize that they guy with no armor and a walking stick could be a spell caster. Condition two actually becomes more likely as the number of combatants involved increases. That is, every foe that rolls a die for initiative gets a chance to roll better than the spell caster. Even if the spell caster gets a 5, someone else could get a 6. In fact, if there are six foes, one of them probably will get a six! Here’s a slimmed down, generic example.
If my group of three or more PCs engages an opposing group of three or more semi-intelligent monsters so long as any one of them gets better initiative than my PC spell caster (quite likely) then they can shut down my PC spell caster via the I-attack-on-his-number procedure already described. Keep in mind, my spell caster has to beat every semi intelligent foe or else the one that beats him can shut him down. Remember, one need only attack, not actually score a hit, to foil the spell. And, there’s no penalty for keying on the spell caster. He’s on the other team anyway, so the foes want to strike him. They just take the time to strike-on-his-number to suppress his spells.
Yes, there are numerous house rule fixes. But, shouldn’t we also consider a simple fix to the base line rules to remedy this? Or, is this OK? If I play by the rules as written, then thinking foes, quite common in BFRPG, can almost always shut down the spell caster.
This also assumes that the GM is not ever rolling group initiative, and that the enemies are ignoring at least two other players.
I think I'm repeating things here, but to address the greater problem:
1) If the goal is to prevent a spell from being cast, then it succeeds, even if it does not remove the spell from memory.
2) When someone waits in combat they don't tell the enemy what they are waiting for, so the GM probably shouldn't either. In the rules a combatant can delay until a specific number, or until another combatant acts. If the spell caster doesn't want to cast simply because an enemy is holding their action then let them, but the party might need that spell ASAP.
3) There are usually multiple targets and goals (e.g. kill an opponent) in combat. The price for delaying is that you might give a different opponent an opportunity to achieve a goal, meanwhile not necessarily completing anything themselves .
My solution: The GM should keep enemies initiatives secret. The rules simply say that the GM counts down the numbers, and everyone acts on their number, or they can choose to wait until a later number. This basically works the same as declaring actions before rolling because the order combatants act in isn't precisely known. It also technically fits in the rules as written, in that there was no rule preventing it.
I think this also works in one-on-one fights. The spell caster(s) won't act until they are reasonably sure they have the initiative (which may or may not be true). If both sides delay, then nothing happens in that round.
If the player is constantly waiting to disrupt the spell, and nothing is happening, even when they have the highest possible initiative, then maybe making them delay until a number might work (still keeping GM initiatives hidden). Caster
A wins initiative, and decides to delay to a number.
A would be able to disrupt Caster
B if
B casts on that number (+/-1?), otherwise
A casts on that number. If Both
A and
B delay to the same number then
A disrupts
B. If
B delays to a higher number than
A, then
B casts normally, followed by
A casting normally. Now there is a higher risk for the reward of disrupting spells.
Anyway: I house rule a d12 instead of d6 for initiative because it gives a slightly larger spread, (fewer simultaneous actions) and gives the d12 some attention.
Call me Joe. Mr. Munkey is my father.