Do you let magic-users cast spells in melee?

[delta]

Do you let magic-users cast spells in melee (i.e., when an active hostile is in melee range)?

Note this asks for a general, default rule (i.e., an existential quantifier). If you sometimes rule yes and sometimes no, then you should pick the “yes” response. The "no" response indicates that magic-users are always prohibited from casting in melee. Feel free to comment on any specific criteria or restrictions below.

[howandwhy99]

I voted no. But really more a "Yes, but no".

Melees are a continuous series of actions summed up with one roll per round for all attacks. Parries, thrusts, blocks, dodges, feints, and all the rest are summed in a series of offensive and defensive maneuvers called "melee". If any of the attacks actually land a damaging blow, it is determined with a To Hit roll. I thought that was btb.

Like missile attacks, "spell casting in melee" means not engaging in a melee while melee is wrought upon you. The meleer's To Hit is resolved immediately, like a contemporary "interrupt", and the caster's AC takes a -4 non-defending bonus - for not defending themselves melee-style.

If the strikes land, the casting (missile attack, or whatever) is disrupted and the spell is lost. A failed casting ruining the prepared spell. If not hit, the caster can successfully cast the spell, provided it can complete before the next round.

So technically "Yes" magic-users may cast spells in melee, but it's like trying to use a canon in a sword fight.

[bobjester0e]

Yes. Because not all spells cast during the melee round would be offensive. Even if a spell takes longer than a round to cast, as long as the caster isn't toe-to-toe with an enemy combatant or struck by missile fire, then the caster has a chance to get that spell off.

There is always the possibility that the spell could get interrupted and lost, but this in no way should prevent a caster from attempting to cast spells.

TLDR: "No" is not the immediate answer.

[dicebro]

For OD&D? Depends on the spell.

[tetramorph]

This is tough, delta.

In mass-combat, such as in the wilderness, I am strict about this, following the whole 3" = melee, no magic in melee rule.

But in the dungeon, I have found that this severely limits the MU. And I have found that players protest greatly.

The way I rule it in the dungeon, is that if an enemy is actively melee attacking an MU, then the MU cannot cast.

But my players usually strategically place the MUs behind the first and even second rank. So I understand the first rank or so to be "guarding" the MUs from the melee itself. So, as long as they are thus protected, I allow them to continue to cast.

What do you think? Am I a softy?

[Zenopus]

I voted "Yes".

I typically run theatre-of-the-mind combat and allow casting during melee unless the caster is directly engaged in melee (i.e., someone swinging at them) or has been hit (by melee, missile or spell) earlier in the round. I use Dex-based initiative without declarations, so on a caster's turn they can choose to cast if they haven't been hit by something and don't have anyone swinging at them.

[Desparil]

I voted "Yes." In my mind, that's intuitively how it needs to work, or else all of the reversed healing spells are useless - as are Holy Word, Time Stop, and any other spells that have an instantaneous or short-term effect in a radius around the caster, as well as close range cone- or fan-shaped blasts like Burning Hands or Color Spray.

[flightcommander]

oldschoolfrp.tumblr.com/post/111186346537/the-heroic-party-descends-to-a-lower-level-as-a

[machfront]

Of course!
Maybe I’m off-base.
I’m not nearly as erudite as the others here, I’ve seen…

‘In melee’ is just and only that. Distance and immediacy. That doesn’t mean outright a spell prep or caster is in danger….yet.
Go ahead and prep that spell against the four drunken, towns guardsmen!
Initiative will be another thing…and, to me….still not yet. But…a successful ‘to hit’ from a said drunken guardsman in range with initiative targeted against the spell-spinner….then…THEN…sorry…nope….now you’re in the realm of losing your casting and drawing your dagger and/or another PC diving in to save you, etc.

I…I dont get…honestly…why this is confusing or up for debate… 😕🤷‍♂️
Not being a jerk….I just really don’t get why it wouldn’t simply just and only be this way…. ?

[thegreyelf]

I do, but if they are actively engaged with another combatant - ie. they have been attacked already - I make them succeed at a Breath Weapon save (which seems the most appropriate for dodging out of the way of incoming crap while they try to cast). I have experimented with the "your spell goes off at the end of the round and if you get hit it's spoiled" method, too, but the breath weapon save goes down better with my players.

[thegreyelf]

Jun 28, 2023 20:50:06 GMT -6 Desparil said:

I voted "Yes." In my mind, that's intuitively how it needs to work, or else all of the reversed healing spells are useless - as are Holy Word, Time Stop, and any other spells that have an instantaneous or short-term effect in a radius around the caster, as well as close range cone- or fan-shaped blasts like Burning Hands or Color Spray.

I actually treat these spells as specific exceptions to my rule about making a save to cast in melee, as they are expressly designed to be melee spells. The idea is that certain types of magic are built for battle, and certain types are built for distance. The latter require more complexity and are trickier to cast, while the former are reflexive.

[Mordorandor]

No. (But came late to the party and so couldn't vote.) I never allow spell users to use spells when engaged in melee. (And I make this clear upfront before adjudicating a session/adventure.)

As many suggest, this depends on what it means to be engaged in melee.

If a foe is within 30 (feet in dungeons/towns, yards outside dungeons/in wilderness) of the spell user, they're engaged and cannot use spells (that's why one should adventure to get magic wands and staves).

If a foe is within 30 but the spell user has a rank of allies in front of them, then yes, because "All types of troops are considered to control the space 1" on either side of themselves to stop infiltration," obviating melee engagement for the spell user.

From the sounds of it, and from many of my experiences, some players and referees like to judge that spell users are generally prevented from spell use only when a foe is within striking distance (within 10/1") of the spell user. And only then when it pertains to certain spells.

Edit: I treat spell use as "launching a missile," so the various threads on how one uses missile weapons also informs whether missile use is possible for the spell user. Generally I allow spell use from the 2nd rank but not deeper ranks [for line of sight] and judge that spells may be "thrown" into melee where an ally is present.)