Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Lootus 07-05-07, 08:31 PM	I wanted to get some opinions on using delay in the surprise round, and the surprise round itself. Here is an example. An invisible rogue (who gets more than one attack with his full attack) wants to ambush someone. He appears in front of his target and chooses to delay, doing nothing for the entire surprise round. Then he chooses to act first in the first regular round of combat, in order to unleash a full attack before anyone else has a chance to go. But the above example seems nonsensical to me. Isn’t the purpose of the surprise round to restrict a surprise action to a standard action? If you blow your surprise round by not acting, why should you have the option to use a full-round action in the first regular round before the non-surprised combatants (at least not without winning initiative against them)? Wasn’t that the entire purpose of the surprise round? In other words, it seems as though the reason the surprise round exists in the first place is to actually prevent someone from opening up with a full-round action before anyone else has had a chance to roll initiative. Basically, I'm questioning delaying from the surprise round into regular rounds. Although “Surprise” and “Regular” combat rounds are differentiated by name, there isn’t really much to be found on this other than the way the allowed actions in the surprise round are described: In initiative order (highest to lowest), combatants who started the battle aware of their opponents each take one action (either a standard action or a move action) during the surprise round. And In initiative order (highest to lowest), combatants who started the battle aware of their opponents each take a standard action during the surprise round. You can also take free actions during the surprise round. It doesn’t specifically say you can use delay, but that really does not seem nearly good enough to support any ruling otherwise. DELAY By choosing to delay, you take no action and then act normally on whatever initiative count you decide to act. When you delay, you voluntarily reduce your own initiative result for the rest of the combat. When your new, lower initiative count comes up later in the same round, you can act normally. You can specify this new initiative result or just wait until some time later in the round and act then, thus fixing your new initiative count at that point. You never get back the time you spend waiting to see what’s going to happen. You can’t, however, interrupt anyone else’s action (as you can with a readied action). Initiative Consequences of Delaying: Your initiative result becomes the count on which you took the delayed action. If you come to your next action and have not yet performed an action, you don’t get to take a delayed action (though you can delay again). If you take a delayed action in the next round, before your regular turn comes up, your initiative count rises to that new point in the order of battle, and you do not get your regular action that round. My goal here is certainly not to finagle some interpretation that will let me disallow this. I would just like to verify how it’s really intended to work, because it seems to really diminish the reason for surprise rounds in the first place. Maybe I just need a better point of view on it. :confused: What do you think?
Anathema 07-05-07, 10:43 PM	The only reason someone would want to delay their action in a surprise round is to gain the first initiative in normal rounds. This would mean they would have to know the initiatives of everyone in combat, which is metagaming. If they already have the initiative, they would gain a standard action plus the first full action as well. There really is no reason why someone would want to delay their surprise round action; unless you wanted to restrict pounce from working in the surprise round, like you asked in that other thread ;)
Lootus 07-06-07, 12:24 AM	The only reason someone would want to delay their action in a surprise round is to gain the first initiative in normal rounds. This would mean they would have to know the initiatives of everyone in combat, which is metagaming. If they already have the initiative, they would gain a standard action plus the first full action as well. There really is no reason why someone would want to delay their surprise round action; unless you wanted to restrict pounce from working in the surprise round, like you asked in that other thread ;) Well, mostly I was curious as to how one would go about modifying encounters to fit that change. Weirdly, the delay idea helped make it more clear to me why it works the way it does. :embarrass But then that brought me to my separate question about delay, so I decided a new thread might be best. Anyway, before I say anything else I'll regret, it looks like maybe I just need some help with how delay works first. I'm pretty sure I understand what you are saying...basically, why would you discard your surprise action in order to be the first to go in the next round, unless you somehow knew you were not going to go first? I tried to take this into consideration with my example. I was thinking that this would be an acceptable tradeoff even if you had no idea what the other initiative rolls would be, because you are counting on getting off a full-round action before anyone can go. Maybe it is a particularly devastating or effective full round action or full attack, or maybe you just know that you are slow (have bad luck with initiative rolls or a terrible initiative modifier). Or maybe the thought of a guaranteed full attack against a flat-footed opponent is worth the trade off of your guaranteed standard attack against the flat-footed opponent, and the (perhaps slim) possibility of further attacks on the flat-footed victim (depending on how initiative rolls come out).
JustinA 07-06-07, 12:45 AM	But the above example seems nonsensical to me. Isn’t the purpose of the surprise round to restrict a surprise action to a standard action? If you blow your surprise round by not acting, why should you have the option to use a full-round action in the first regular round before the non-surprised combatants (at least not without winning initiative against them)? Let's take a look at the two scenarios: (1) Character takes an action during the surprise round. Character takes a full turn during the first round of combat at their initiative. (2) Character takes a full turn at the beginning of the first round of combat (because they delayed their action). So the character is, in fact, sacrificing an entire action in order to move his initiative count up. They spent the surprise round setting up for whatever action they took at the beginning of the first round of combat. So, what's the problem? The only reason someone would want to delay their action in a surprise round is to gain the first initiative in normal rounds. This would mean they would have to know the initiatives of everyone in combat, which is metagaming. Technically, if you aren't taking an action during the surprise round, you don't get to role for initiative until after the surprise round has been resolved.
Lootus 07-06-07, 02:01 AM	I'm not sure it's a problem so much as a strangeness. You are indeed sacrificing your surprise round action to go first in the next round, but a) a surprise action is restricted, and b) the way the initiative will turn out is unknown. So yes, you sacrifice your restricted surprise round action, but you now know you will be able to take a full-round action while your opponent is flat-footed. But, isn't the whole idea behind the surprise round supposed to be a way to handle the aware side having a chance to act first, except with a limited action? By being able to delay out of surprise into the first regular initiative spot, doesn't it bypass the point of the surprise round itself? It's not like you can count on being first in the initiative otherwise. I see these choices: a) you act (surprise action), opponent acts, you act... b) you do nothing...you act, opponent acts, you act... c) you act (surprise action), you act again, opponent acts... Sure, you'd love to have C every time, but you can't control that. You could end up with option A, and by the time you can use a full-round action, you know your opponent will no longer be flat-footed. So that leaves option B. You know you'll have the option of a full-round action against your opponent while they are still flat-footed. If the situation would have otherwise been A, you end up sacrificing nothing. If the situation would have otherwise been C, you lost out on either a standard or move action. So by choosing B, you know you'll get a result better than A every time. Which seems to me like it negates the entire point of the surprise round to begin with.:confused: I must be missing something here.
Despana 07-06-07, 02:19 AM	I have a question. Did the other members of the rogue's party (or at least the schleps he's traveling with:P) do anything in the surprise round. The reason I ask is because if the rogue sits out the surprise round and the enemy is still unaware of anything out of the ordinary, the next set of 6 seconds would still be a surprise round (one side aware, the other not), assuming the rogue chose to act then. If the rogue refused to act during a surprise round everyone gets really, really bored waiting for something to happen.
JustinA 07-06-07, 02:47 AM	But, isn't the whole idea behind the surprise round supposed to be a way to handle the aware side having a chance to act first, except with a limited action? By being able to delay out of surprise into the first regular initiative spot, doesn't it bypass the point of the surprise round itself? It's not like you can count on being first in the initiative otherwise. The point of a surprise round is to model the slight edge that somebody gets by being aware first. This either takes the form of a free action (by acting on the surprise round) or getting to go first (by delaying out of the surprise round). I see these choices: a) you act (surprise action), opponent acts, you act... b) you do nothing...you act, opponent acts, you act... c) you act (surprise action), you act again, opponent acts... There are actually four options, not three. In order of best-to-worst: (a) surprise action, full turn, other guy (b) surprise action, other guy, full turn (c) full turn, other guy, full turn (d) other guy, full turn, other guy Now, in a situation where you've gotten a surprise round you know that you're in either (a) or (b) -- but you don't know which one, yet. (Since, by RAW, the other guy hasn't rolled his initiative yet.) So you've got a choice: (1) I can take my surprise action, which gives me option (a) or (b). (2) I can sacrifice my surprise action, thereby guaranteeing that I have option (c). In either case, you've gotten a better result than if you hadn't gotten a surprise round. (1) If you didn't get a surprise round you are either going to be in (c) or (d), so (a) or (b) is clearly superior. (2) If you hadn't gotten a surprise round to delay out of, you would only have a 50% chance of getting (c) instead of (d). (Assuming everything else is equal. Clearly having a 100% chance of getting (c) instead of (d) is better than only having a 50% chance of getting (c) instead of (d). So, in either case, the surprise round is beneficial and gives you a slight edge. Which is, in fact, the point of the surprise round.
Marcus Majarra 07-06-07, 03:36 AM	I prefer to see the surprise round and its initiative as a relative measure of the time it takes for a character to ready itself. Logically speaking, how does delaying your action change how long it takes for an opponent to ready itself against you? By considering the idea that you can delay all the way into the first round of combat implies that you have more time to do what you want than you would normally be allowed before your opponent reacts. Delaying from the surprise round into the first round implies that you know how long you have before your opponent reacts. In any case, if nothing happens during the surprise round and the awareness of the participants doesn't change, I don't see why the next round wouldn't also be a surprise round. It's like delaying the entire combat for one round.
Leilond 07-06-07, 06:16 AM	I will never admit such a thing, it's pure metagaming You cannot delay to "the higest initiative in the next round" because initiative isn't rolled, and once rolled, if the enemy rolled higher than anyone else, you cannot "interrupt" him, because delayed action cannot interrupt someone (only readied can) So, I will admit you to "delay" but you won't be able to interrupt the "winner" of the initiative... I can admit you to act as "second" creature, thus you can hope that the "winner" of the initiative isn't the creature you want to attack The rules mechanic with delay, give me the opportunity to act before the opponent turn come. Once it is the opponent turn, I cannot interrupt him anymore... the decision must be taken in advance. Until noone roll for initiative, the surprise round isn't ended. Once the initiative is rolled, it's the "higest one" turn to act, and you cannot interrupt him anymore We have to remember that, until something that make creatures aware of the started combat or someone use it's surprise round standard action that create awarness, the surprise round won't happen. Thus, if the rougue is invisible and do not attack or make something that reveal him, the surprise round didn't happened and the next round will be a surprise round again, until you do not take your "surprise round standard action that make them aware of you" This is how I will rule
Radijs 07-06-07, 06:27 AM	I wouldn't let it work really. Though technically a combat encounter starts when one hostile notices another but thats always struck me as a bit silly. The surprise round is in my world the first round during which the hidden attacker gives himself away. Example: Invisible rogue spots his target. Nothing happens yet. He can sneak closer and assuming he stays undetected nothing still happens. He strikes. Thats the surprise round. And count initiative normally from that moment on. Note that this won't allow the rogue to refocus or delay until he has started the fight.
Lootus 07-06-07, 08:51 AM	It brought this scenario to mind: Person A is walking down the street when a rogue suddenly appears before him (steps out from behind a corner, dismisses invis spell, etc.): Surprise round: Rogue: "Hyah!"...*cough* (blink blink) (crickets chirping) 6 seconds pass... 1st round: Rogue: "Full attack!" Seems...odd. Now apply to any situation where a PC finds themselves suddenly face to face with something with a nasty full attack. On the one hand, it seems to fly in the face of what the surprise round is there for. On the other hand, if this is meant to be a legitimate tactic, I don't want to overlook it during encounter design and possibly reduce the effectiveness of the monsters.
Leilond 07-06-07, 09:54 AM	It brought this scenario to mind: Person A is walking down the street when a rogue suddenly appears before him (steps out from behind a corner, dismisses invis spell, etc.): Surprise round: Rogue: "Hyah!"...*cough* (blink blink) (crickets chirping) 6 seconds pass... 1st round: Rogue: "Full attack!" Seems...odd. Now apply to any situation where a PC finds themselves suddenly face to face with something with a nasty full attack. How can be "logical" to being able to make more attacks "waiting" than "directly attacking"? You take your attack and if you're quick enought (good initiative roll) you can also do your full sneak attack. If you aren't enought quick (bad initiative roll) you do not your full sneak attack The initiative is there for a pourpose, represent the quicnkess of the action. If you want to full attack a flat-footed character take "improved initiative", buy dexterity item. Do not try to foolish the rules with strange and not realistic mechaninc This way it remain in the RAW and, most important, will remain LOGICAL. Because if you're quick (good initiative) you'll deliver more attacks, and not "if you wait you'll be quicker" On the one hand, it seems to fly in the face of what the surprise round is there for. On the other hand, if this is meant to be a legitimate tactic, I don't want to overlook it during encounter design and possibly reduce the effectiveness of the monsters. I think it is totally not a legitimate tactics, because you cannot delay to act before a initiative value that isn't yet rolled, and once rolled you cannot "interrupt" the first that have to act (ready action are there for a reason) And most of all, I cannot admit a rule that let you make more attacks giving up a round.
JustinA 07-06-07, 11:07 AM	You cannot delay to "the higest initiative in the next round" because initiative isn't rolled, and once rolled, if the enemy rolled higher than anyone else, you cannot "interrupt" him, because delayed action cannot interrupt someone (only readied can) Sorry to be blunt, but this is complete and utter nonsense completely divorced from the rules of the game. You appear to be attempting to implement some sort of bizarre, bastardized blending of the rules for readying and delaying actions. Go back and read the rules for delaying an action. You do not need to declare a condition you are waiting for when delaying an action. We have to remember that, until something that make creatures aware of the started combat or someone use it's surprise round standard action that create awarness, the surprise round won't happen. Thus, if the rougue is invisible and do not attack or make something that reveal him, the surprise round didn't happened and the next round will be a surprise round again, until you do not take your "surprise round standard action that make them aware of you" This is not a bad argument, but it assumes that the PC is all by himself and/or that none of his comrades take any action during the surprise round.
Leilond 07-06-07, 11:19 AM	Sorry to be blunt, but this is complete and utter nonsense completely divorced from the rules of the game. You appear to be attempting to implement some sort of bizarre, bastardized blending of the rules for readying and delaying actions. Go back and read the rules for delaying an action. You do not need to declare a condition you are waiting for when delaying an action. I know the rules You cannot "interrupt" anyone with a delayed action. You can act BEFORE or AFTER a creature. But you have to say it BEFORE the creature turn come, you cannot let the creature start its turn and then block it and act yourself. Until you don't roll for initiative, the surprise round isn't ended, and when the roll for initiative the "winner" turn has come and you cannot stop it with your delayed action And the more illogical issue at all If I attack during the surprise round I will deliver less sneak attack than delaying. So I will be more surprising delaing than acting. That is completaly out of the spirit of the rules This is not a bad argument, but it assumes that the PC is all by himself and/or that none of his comrades take any action during the surprise round.[/QUOTE]
JustinA 07-06-07, 11:56 AM	I know the rules You cannot "interrupt" anyone with a delayed action. You can act BEFORE or AFTER a creature. But you have to say it BEFORE the creature turn come, you cannot let the creature start its turn and then block it and act yourself. Until you don't roll for initiative, the surprise round isn't ended, and when the roll for initiative the "winner" turn has come and you cannot stop it with your delayed action And the more illogical issue at all If I attack during the surprise round I will deliver less sneak attack than delaying. So I will be more surprising delaing than acting. That is completaly out of the spirit of the rules. I'll make you a deal: If you learn proper English and post a message that makes sense, then I will continue this discussion with you. Until that happens, there seems little point in trying to figure out what the heck you're trying to say here. Justin Alexander http://www.thealexandrian.net
Some_call_me_Tim 07-06-07, 01:31 PM	I'll make you a deal: If you learn proper English and post a message that makes sense, then I will continue this discussion with you. Until that happens, there seems little point in trying to figure out what the heck you're trying to say here.Justin leave the personal attacks out of this. Debate the issue not the person. Besides why don't you learn proper Italian and debate Leilond in his native language. Ok, now to the question at hand. I believe Justin is correct. When I first came across this conundrum a while back, my first reaction was to say, "No way." Then I actually combed through the rules a bit. The first line of the delay text reads: "By choosing to delay, you take no action and then act normally on whatever initiative count you decide to act." The Rogue could merely state he wants his initiative count to be 1,486,215. Surprise round ends. First normal round begins. Everyone who hasn't rolled for initiative now does so. The enemy has 25 DEX and improved initiative; he rolls a natural 20, let's see that is 31. He isn't trying to interrupt anyone, 1,486,215 still goes first. The rogue is giving up a chance to get a standard action and possibly a full round to be guaranteed a full round. If you look at the total number of actions at the end of the first normal round of combat you see: rogue delays and gets one round worth of actions; if he doesn't delay he gets basically 1-1/2 rounds worth of actions.
Lilinthra 07-06-07, 02:52 PM	Is there anything in the rules stating that by delaying a surprise round's standard action to the first normal round of combat you suddenly gain a full action in it's place? I'd be inclined to rule that you still only have the partial action... you're delaying a partial action, it stays a partial action until the combat gets back to your original init.
Marcus Majarra 07-06-07, 02:59 PM	It still doesn't make any sense that you can guarantee yourself more actions available to you if you wait than if you act right now. If this were the case, then it stands to reason that all surprising creatures should opt to delay into the normal round, based on the abstract and immeasurable concept of initiative counts. Initiative merely exists as a mechanic to indicate in what order people act, not how long it takes between everyone's actions. In any case, I believe I found evidence of why delaying into the first round as a means to secure a full-round's worth of actions doesn't work. From the SRD, under Delay: "By choosing to delay, you take no action and then act normally on whatever initiative count you decide to act. When you delay, you voluntarily reduce your own initiative result for the rest of the combat. When your new, lower initiative count comes up later in the same round, you can act normally." When you delay, you're simply moving your actual actions at a later point in combat, not actually changing which actions you have available to you. I believe this is what's meant by "you can act normally." The actions of the first round of combat are what the SRD indicates as being your next action: "If you come to your next action and have not yet performed an action, you don’t get to take a delayed action (though you can delay again)." Here, there's a clear reference to the delayed action (i.e. the action you chose to delay). By simple extrapolation, if you delay during the surprise round, the action you'll be taking after delaying will be the single standard action you chose to delay (hence, the delayed action), regardless of whether you take your action during the surprise round or the first actual combat round. What will simply happen if you delay into the first round will be that you'll only get to perform a standard action during the first round of combat , since one of the consequences of delaying into a new round is to be denied your regular actions for that round.
SoulLord 07-06-07, 03:44 PM	I really don't see what the problem is even if you enforce a rule so it won't happen. the most likely result will be that the character acting in the surprise round will get his standard action and then get his full round action. Thus making him even more effective against your poor critters or mobs.
nlentz88 07-06-07, 04:10 PM	Ah, what a tricky question! Sure, you can delay during a surprise round. And yes, you could say, "I'll act at initiative count 156,452 on the next round" to ensure that your character acts first. If you do so, the surprise round is over and you can take a full round action. It's a simple trade off. Instead of getting the standard action in the surprise round and a full round action in the next round, you only get a full round action in the first full round of combat after the surprise round... though with the highest initiative result, you get to act first. Seems pretty cut and dry to me. It could get a little silly when PC #1 wants to delay until initiative count 156,452 and PC #2 wants to delay until initiative count 156,453.
danyc 07-06-07, 04:11 PM	For an interesting addition to this, check out Shock & Awe (I love that name) in Spell Compendium, now one of my absolute favorite and must-have Assassin spells (although other folks get it too, and its cool for just about anyone). It doesn't really change the arguments but it offers another way to get a full round of sneak attack (without losing your surprise action, either).
Lilinthra 07-06-07, 05:06 PM	Here, there's a clear reference to the delayed action (i.e. the action you chose to delay). By simple extrapolation, if you delay during the surprise round, the action you'll be taking after delaying will be the single standard action you chose to delay (hence, the delayed action), regardless of whether you take your action during the surprise round or the first actual combat round. What will simply happen if you delay into the first round will be that you'll only get to perform a standard action during the first round of combat , since one of the consequences of delaying into a new round is to be denied your regular actions for that round. Yep, this is what I was attempting to convey. The last bit in the Delay section (now that I've had the chance to re-read a few things), ends with the following: Your initiative result becomes the count on which you took the delayed action. If you come to your next action and have not yet performed an action, you don’t get to take a delayed action (though you can delay again). If you take a delayed action in the next round, before your regular turn comes up, your initiative count rises to that new point in the order of battle, and you do not get your regular action that round. The last sentence is the case being discussed here, and my interpretation is that you are taking the delayed "standard action" from the surprise round, and do not get the "regular action" for the round, a normal full round of action.
Eerongal 07-06-07, 05:22 PM	yes, by my reading of the rules, if you delay a partial action to the beggining of the next round, you would get a partial action at the beggining of the next round, because of those last lines: If you take a delayed action in the next round, before your regular turn comes up, your initiative count rises to that new point in the order of battle, and you do not get your regular action that round.
Lootus 07-06-07, 05:56 PM	yes, by my reading of the rules, if you delay a partial action to the beggining of the next round, you would get a partial action at the beggining of the next round, because of those last lines: That occured to me at first as well, but I wasn't sure if it was enough to support a definitive answer (or if I wanted to delve into what is considered a 'regular action' in the way it relates to the type of initiative round that is in process). You know, at first when I re-read the initiative section in the PHB I thought, "maybe the surprise round is actually intended to be independent of the regular rounds". As in, those who went in the surprise round re-roll initiative once regular rounds begin. If this was the case, then delaying would be a moot point. But as it turns out, the intro text for "How Combat Works" specifically states that after the surprise round, "combatants who have not yet rolled initiative do so". Then I just read this (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20051129a), and got confused again: Once the door opens, the remainder of the party takes the single standard actions (or move actions) they're allowed during a surprise round. Since it's usually best to handle actions one character at a time, I have the characters act in the order they're standing before the door or in the order of their initiative modifier, whichever seems most appropriate for the situation. There still are no initiative checks because a surprise round represents a flurry of unexpected activity before a battle begins in earnest. After the party uses their surprise actions, everyone makes initiative checks.I guess maybe this is Skip's house rule, but using this method would also negate delaying in the surprise round, correct?
danyc 07-06-07, 06:18 PM	The Spell I quoted supports the 'everyone else rolls later' bit, it waits for them to roll and then gives them a big whopping penalty.
Lootus 07-06-07, 10:01 PM	I really don't see what the problem is even if you enforce a rule so it won't happen. the most likely result will be that the character acting in the surprise round will get his standard action and then get his full round action. Thus making him even more effective against your poor critters or mobs.I was thinking that in the long run the PC's would get the worse end of this deal. Thinking of things like: A beholder who hears the pc's coming down a hallway, floats around the corner, fires 3 rays, then takes a move action back around the corner (could also apply to other casters, etc.) A purple worm that erupts from the ground, swallows a pc whole, then burrows back down into the ground Anything that manages to get the jump on someone within 5' (or reach + 5'), and has something like improved grab and multiple tentacle/other attacks (perhaps Otyugh, Roper, or even Troll) heck, even the gelatinous cube could benefit from this. Usually, an adventurer has to practically walk into the thing to get engulfed while flat-footed, but now it's got a 15' move action to play with (let's face it, it's not counting on winning initiative with a -5)Sure, these things can always happen if the pc's are unlucky and the opponent gets the highest initiative, but a monster can't plan on it without using the surprise-delay. On the plus side for the characters, they'll have less of those pesky initiative rolls to bother with .:evillaugh
Dowjin 07-07-07, 04:48 AM	Editted for incorrectness.
Marcus Majarra 07-07-07, 11:27 AM	When the suprise round ends, no one should be flat footed anymore. Actually, everyone who hasn't acted yet will still be flat-footed. At the end of the surprise round, this includes all the surprised parties. The player doesn't need to delay a specific action (though he can, though he would be losing the versatility of a delayed action, and should instead invest in a Readied action.) When he calls on his delayed action, he then gets to act AFTER the subsequent round finishes. So, delaying his action would place him 2nd in the initiative order, and then allow him to take his full round from that place in the initiative order; which, after leaving the suprise round, allows him a full round of action. No, but you delay a number of action types, such as standard, move, full-round and so on. The character doesn't get his set of actions as if he were acting on the subsequent round. He's merely delaying the actions he was entitled to in the surprise round. None of this is metagaming, in fact its using the game mechanics to properly portray the preparedness of a rogue wishing to be as efficient as possible in a stealth kill. Knowing initiative orders is no different than being aware of an opponent's AC, and just as easy to figure out "oh, he acted before me, he must be quicker (higher init, and a possibly higher dex)" Remember, game mechanics are only symbols for what the characters can know and explain IC. This is entirely false. An opponent's AC can be measured based on what protection he's wearing. An initiative count cannot, since it merely establishes between which two other acting creatures your round's actions will take place.
Mystic Lemur 07-07-07, 12:04 PM	Just wanted to point out, everyone is flat-footed until they act regardless of whether or not there was a surprise round. I, for one, agree that it is in the spirit of the rules to only be allowed to take a partial action if you delay during the surprise round. What it sounds like the rogue is trying to do, however, is refocus. Why not just refocus. Also, I don't buy into this my initiative is 1,957,234 mess. How can a person's initiative ever be higher than they could possibly get on their own? If a refocus can only get you 20+Initiative modifier, how can delay get you higher? Oh, well. Why not just delay to 1 and go before everyone else in the next round?
wrecan 07-07-07, 12:36 PM	Here is an example. An invisible rogue (who gets more than one attack with his full attack) wants to ambush someone. He appears in front of his target and chooses to delay, doing nothing for the entire surprise round. Then he chooses to act first in the first regular round of combat, in order to unleash a full attack before anyone else has a chance to go. This will not work Any combatants aware of the opponents can act in the surprise round, so they roll for initiative. -Surprise (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/initiative.htm#surprise) Thus, people who are surprised such as the ambusher's target) do not roll initiative during the surprise round. By choosing to delay, you take no action and then act normally on whatever initiative count you decide to act. When you delay, you voluntarily reduce your own initiative result for the rest of the combat. When your new, lower initiative count comes up later in the same round, you can act normally. -Delay (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialInitiativeActions.htm#delay) Note a few things here... The delayer has to declare at the time of the delay, what his new initiative count is going to be. During the surprise round, however, he doesn't know what his opponent's initiative count is going to be during regular combat. His opponent has no initiative count. And, in fact, the only initiative count is the ambusher's own initiative roll. Now, note that the rules state he can only "lower" his roll. Delaying during the surprise round does nothing but increase the chance that his opponent will roll higher than him. Obviously, once combat starts, you can delay yourself into the next initiative sequence. (I.e., when Alice, Bob, Carol and Daniel fight, with initiative scores of Alice-12, Bob-9, Carol-6 and Daniel-3, Carol should be allowed to delay so she goes after Alice and before Bob. This changes her initiative count to 11.) But the rules indicate that the only appropriate delay action is to reset your initiative to a number between one less that the lowest initiative count and one more than the highest initiative count. Accordingly, I'd rule that delay in the surprise round does nothing but add one to the player's initiative count. If he's lucky, the opponent rolls low and then he gets his full attack.
Jackmojo 07-07-07, 08:27 PM	Rules wise it looks like a wash to me, since most characters and their enemies should have vaguely comparable initiatives. The surpriser is trading the one bonus attack in the surprise round for a sure thing on the regular round, so trading a sure fire 4 sneak attacks for 5 possible sneak attacks, some folks might always take this but if so I'd say your opponents are too predictable for your players. In other words, encourage your players to gamble for the big money, by not always dumping enemies on them who will easily beat their initiative (I can't even count the number of GM advice threads where folks talk about ALWAYS giving their monsters/NPCs Improved Initiative :yuck: ) Jack
Lootus 07-07-07, 08:52 PM	Here's what I'm seeing as the different views so far: a) The wording of the rules isn't 100% clear, but it's not really intended, and shouldn't be allowed (this is where I'm leaning) b) Doesn't work c) It works, but you still only get the standard or move action like in the surprise round (seemingly the same end result as options a and b) d) It works, and is intended to work this way The factor I see as most important is how it's intended to work. In my opinion, the evidence is pointing towards this not being intended as a valid option. As to why I'd like to reach consensus on this, I'll repeat what I said above: On the one hand, it seems to fly in the face of what the surprise round is there for. On the other hand, if this is meant to be a legitimate tactic, I don't want to overlook it during encounter design and possibly reduce the effectiveness of the monsters.Thanks to everyone who's been contributing to this.
Marcus Majarra 07-07-07, 10:40 PM	Delaying in the surprise round works just like in any other round. What people seem to be conveniently neglecting is that when you delay, you merely take whatever actions you have now at a later point in time. If you happen to delay into the next round and take your delayed actions before your next initiative, you also forego that round's actions. Thus, delaying from the surprise round into the first round of combat merely makes it so that your only action during the first round of combat is your delayed action (i.e. the single standard/move action you delayed). The entire point of delaying is basically to allow other creatures to act before you, since initiative is an indicator of the acting order, not how much time you have.
Lootus 07-07-07, 10:49 PM	Delaying in the surprise round works just like in any other round. What people seem to be conveniently neglecting is that when you delay, you merely take whatever actions you have now at a later point in time. If you happen to delay into the next round and take your delayed actions before your next initiative, you also forego that round's actions. Thus, delaying from the surprise round into the first round of combat merely makes it so that your only action during the first round of combat is your delayed action (i.e. the single standard/move action you delayed). The entire point of delaying is basically to allow other creatures to act before you, since initiative is an indicator of the acting order, not how much time you have. This is how I was going to approach it at first too, but the reason I didn't start out with this argument is because after I thought about it, it brought up other questions, such as, what if you are under the effects of a spell such as Slow, and you delay into the next round, and the spell wears off. Do you take a slowed action or non-slowed action? (edit: to clarify, you delay into the next round, the opponent goes and his spell's duration expires, then you take your delayed action)
Empiro 07-08-07, 02:01 AM	The rules aren't clear, but as long as you apply it in a consistent manner, I think the situation is improved, because you're trading off one semi-abuse that occurs every time there's a surprise round (common), for a situation that occurs far rarely. I'd lean toward the direction that delaying can only make your situation worse. For example, you cannot ever gain a better action from delaying, but you could lose it (e.g. if you get slow'ed when you're delaying, you can only take a partial action when you choose to act).
JustinA 07-08-07, 03:01 AM	What people seem to be conveniently neglecting is that when you delay, you merely take whatever actions you have now at a later point in time. Not a bad argument, but I'm afraid it doesn't hold up. By choosing to delay, you take no action and then act normally on whatever initiative count you decide to act. As you can see, delaying is not described in the RAW in the way that you're choosing to describe it. And "acting normally" on an initiative count in a normal combat round (as opposed to the surprise round) entitles you to a full turn. Justin Alexander http://www.thealexandrian.net
tricky_bob 07-08-07, 07:03 AM	From the SRD, under Delay: "By choosing to delay, you take no action and then act normally on whatever initiative count you decide to act. When you delay, you voluntarily reduce your own initiative result for the rest of the combat. When your new, lower initiative count comes up later in the same round, you can act normally." Where does it say you can delay into the following non-surprise round? same round seems fairly clear to me, meaning not the following one surely?? Reduce (meaning lower) Rest of Combat (your lower initiative continues) How can it be possible to - delay - and - reduce - something into an initiative count higher than everyone else in the following round? That makes no sense to me. IMO, if you choose to Delay your action, you are choosing to act later in the current, and therefore all following, rounds.
Marcus Majarra 07-09-07, 12:54 AM	This is how I was going to approach it at first too, but the reason I didn't start out with this argument is because after I thought about it, it brought up other questions, such as, what if you are under the effects of a spell such as Slow, and you delay into the next round, and the spell wears off. Do you take a slowed action or non-slowed action? (edit: to clarify, you delay into the next round, the opponent goes and his spell's duration expires, then you take your delayed action) Slow is probably the only border case example. Going from the strict RAW, you'd only get an edge if you were delaying right before becoming slowed, which doesn't net you any more actions than you would've had on that turn. The same applies to delaying while in the last round of slow. The point is, you can take your delayed actions at any time before your next action would arrive. And "acting normally" on an initiative count in a normal combat round (as opposed to the surprise round) entitles you to a full turn. Your definition of "acting normally" has little basis in fact. Characters don't get their usual allotment of actions for a regular combat round at any point in time during that round. PHB138 states that "when a character's turn comes up in the initiative sequence, that character performs his entire round's worth of actions." This happens during all rounds, including the surprise round. When you delay, you're delaying a specific set of actions (referred to as the "delayed action" in PHB160). If you happen to delay into a new round, to a point before your regular turn comes up, you also deny yourself your normal action for that round, also as stated on PHB160. This all implies that you'd only get your full round's worth of actions, on the first normal round of combat, when your regular turn would come up, on that round. If you happen to delay to a point before your regular turn comes up, you don't get your normal actions for that round, leaving you with only the delayed actions. It's important to note that nowhere in the description of delaying is it indicated that your turn instead comes at any different point in time, you merely choose when you're going to act, and your turn will only arrive at your new initiative result in subsequent rounds. The point is: you get your round's worth of actions when your turn comes up in the initiative sequence during that round. Delaying doesn't change when your turn comes up until after taking your delayed action, since the initiative change is a result of taking your delayed action (and delaying until your next initiative merely denies you the delayed actions).
Anathema 07-09-07, 01:16 AM	To me it seems the intent of the delay action is to allow a character to wait to act until the opportune moment. The last section of the delay description outlines what happens if you delay in one round all the way up until your next turn; stating that your initiative count can rise if you delay in to the next round. It also states in the delay action section that you can specify what initiative order you want to delay to; so I take back what I said earlier about metagaming. I really don't see why this couldn't be allowed. It's up to each DM, but I'd allow it.
Gyrofthewastes 07-09-07, 01:36 AM	I, for one, agree that it is in the spirit of the rules to only be allowed to take a partial action if you delay during the surprise round. What it sounds like the rogue is trying to do, however, is refocus. Why not just refocus. Because "refocus" does not exist in 3.5; its function has been subsumed by the Delay action. If you take a delayed action in the next round, before your regular turn comes up, your initiative count rises to the new point in the order of battle, and you do not get your regular action that turn. Though they have been brought up already, I wish to re-emphasize two points because it seems that many people missed them. 1) There are no rules that allow for combatants to be aware of who will act in the surprise round. Therefore, by delaying in a surprise round you run the risk of the opponent not being flat-footed (if said opponent has not already acted in the surprise round) when the first full turn comes around. 2) Delaying in the surprise round costs you an action. When delaying until the next turn, you forfeit the action you would otherwise normally possess in that turn. By choosing not to act in the surprise round, you lose that extra standard action.
Stumm_Dolch 07-09-07, 02:00 AM	There is a mechanical solution to this: Roll initiative at the beginning of the surprise round. This solves your issue. As per the rules for Delay, you may sacrifice your position on the initiative order to take your actions LOWER down the list. Surprise round: if the rogue wins initiative and choses to delay, then all he's done is given away his surprise action since he's acting first next round anyway. if the rogue loses initiative, but is still the only one allowed to act in the surprise round then he delays BEHIND the opponent for the surprise round, and when next round comes, your opponent goes first. [Edit: This is purely a mechanical problem-solver for you, I'm actually of the opinion that it's ok for a rogue to get into position during the surprise round and go all out on an unsuspecting opponent.]
Gryllmyre 07-09-07, 02:11 AM	In my games, I allow someone to choose when to act after a delay ONLY when I say someone else's turn is over (and not when I say someone else is about to take their turn, because PC's aren't supposed to know who goes next, and a delay does not equate to readying). That way, it isn't possible for someone to say they delay and suddenly do something just because a certain stage in initiative has passed. If they want to delay and get the advantage in the first actual round, they'll have to wait until after at least one combatant has taken a turn in the first actual round of combat.
Leilond 07-09-07, 03:09 AM	Totally agree Until the first creature in the regular round doesn't get the opportunity to act, it's still the surprise round. Thus, if the rougue delay to act BEFORE the first creature of the regular round, he's acting in the surprise round. That's sound really plain for me.
wrecan 07-09-07, 10:13 AM	Thus, if the rougue delay to act BEFORE the first creature of the regular round, he's acting in the surprise round. That's sound really plain for me. Well, hold on. Let's say Alice and Bernard surprise Carl. Both ALice and Bernard have a +2 to initiative Alice rols a 4 (6 total) and Bernard rolls a 20 (22 total) for initiative in the surprise round. Alice decides to delay, so that her next action takes place at the 21 cound in initiative, right after Bernard. This means it's very likely she'll go before Carl in the regular combat. Bernard takes his surprise action. Now Carl rolls his initiative. He ends up rolling a 5 modified. Bernard goes first. He takes a full attack. Thanks to Alice's delay, she should go next. Should she get a full attack? She essentially used her surprise action to set up for an earlier full attack. Real combat has begun, since Bernard already full attacked. Carl is going to get a full attack. Why can't Alice? Ironically, if she hadn't delayed, she'd have gotten to use a full attack before Bernard (as well as a surprise attack). Somehow, holding off on an attack means she doesn't even get the normal combat round?
Leilond 07-09-07, 10:36 AM	Well, hold on. Let's say Alice and Bernard surprise Carl. Both ALice and Bernard have a +2 to initiative Alice rols a 4 (6 total) and Bernard rolls a 20 (22 total) for initiative in the surprise round. Alice decides to delay, so that her next action takes place at the 21 cound in initiative, right after Bernard. This means it's very likely she'll go before Carl in the regular combat. Bernard takes his surprise action. Now Carl rolls his initiative. He ends up rolling a 5 modified. Bernard goes first. He takes a full attack. Thanks to Alice's delay, she should go next. Should she get a full attack? She essentially used her surprise action to set up for an earlier full attack. Real combat has begun, since Bernard already full attacked. Carl is going to get a full attack. Why can't Alice? Sure he can, because he acted AFTER the first creature in the regular round, Bernard, so the regular round started. Ironically, if she hadn't delayed, she'd have gotten to use a full attack before Bernard (as well as a surprise attack). Somehow, holding off on an attack means she doesn't even get the normal combat round? I never said that You didn't understand me. Bernard is a creature, and after his first action in the regular round, the regular round started so Alice can take his delayed action Acting before any other regular round action is actin in the surprise round If Carl roll less than Bernard, Alice will full attack while Carl is flat-footed, if Carl roll higher than anyone else, he's so quick to prevent Alice from taking advantage of his status Thus Alice must make an hard choice. Use his standard action during the surprise round to be sure Carl is attacked flat-footed, or delay to 21 (after the regular round started) hoping that Carl isn't enought quick to prevent the full attack in flat-footed status... it sounds perfectly logical
wrecan 07-09-07, 11:16 AM	The problem is let's say the exact same thing happens, but it goes as follows: Surprise Round: Bernard (22) attacks Alice (6) delays to 21 in the next initiative Carl is surprised --------------- Next Round: (Carl rolls a 4 on his initiative) Bernard (22) delays Alice declares she wants to full attack. Can Alice get a full attack here? Is Bernard's delay considered an action in the regular round? Scenario Two How about this. Surprise Round: Bernard (22) drinks a vial he thought was a potion of bull's endurance. It turns out to be Constitution poison. He dies. Alice (6) delays to 21 in the next initiative Carl is surprised --------------- Next Round: (Carl rolls a 4 on his initiative) Bernard will not act. He is dead. Alice declares she wants to full attack. Does this work? Bernard never acted in regular combat, but he could have. On the one hand, why is the effectiveness of Alice's delay dependent on Bernard's survival? On the other hand, if Alice gets her full attack here, why does she need Bernard at all?
Leilond 07-09-07, 11:22 AM	The problem is let's say the exact same thing happens, but it goes as follows: Surprise Round: Bernard (22) attacks Alice (6) delays to 21 in the next initiative Carl is surprised --------------- Next Round: (Carl rolls a 4 on his initiative) Bernard (22) delays Alice declares she wants to full attack. Can Alice get a full attack here? Is Bernard's delay considered an action in the regular round? Yes, because delay is described under the "special initiative action" so it make the regular round start Scenario Two How about this. Surprise Round: Bernard (22) drinks a vial he thought was a potion of bull's endurance. It turns out to be Constitution poison. He dies. Alice (6) delays to 21 in the next initiative Carl is surprised --------------- Next Round: (Carl rolls a 4 on his initiative) Bernard will not act. He is dead. Alice declares she wants to full attack. Does this work? Bernard never acted in regular combat, but he could have. On the one hand, why is the effectiveness of Alice's delay dependent on Bernard's survival? On the other hand, if Alice gets her full attack here, why does she need Bernard at all? In this situation I will admit it, but by the RAW you cannot delay to act "before someone", so you cannot delay to act "first" But to be more fair, i will use the "reroll initiative" optional rule suggested by the DM manual Now I'm sure I will do it starting from my next session After the surprise round all initiative will be rerolled
Some_call_me_Tim 07-09-07, 11:28 AM	Note a few things here... The delayer has to declare at the time of the delay, what his new initiative count is going to be. Not true at all. You can specify this new initiative result or just wait until some time later in the round and act then, thus fixing your new initiative count at that point.[emphasis added]
Leilond 07-09-07, 11:33 AM	Not true at all. You can specify this new initiative result or just wait until some time later in the round and act then, thus fixing your new initiative count at that point.[emphasis added] Sure, but to be honest you cannot know my "initiative roll" until I show you... how can you say "I will act before him" if you don't know when my turn will come? And more important... If you act before anyone else you're still in the surprise round. The regular round start when the first creature act For this reason, to mantain the game consistent, I will reroll initiative in the surprise round, so that there cannot be this bad rule deliberate abuse
Some_call_me_Tim 07-09-07, 11:44 AM	From the SRD, under Delay:Keep reading Bob, into the next subsection: If you take a delayed action in the next round, before your regular turn comes up, your initiative count rises to that new point in the order of battle, and you do not get your regular action that round.[emphasis added] How can it be possible to - delay - and - reduce - something into an initiative count higher than everyone else in the following round?Since initiative is cyclic it works just fine. The way I see this question, is when are actions "replenished"? At the beginning of the round for everyone or when your turn comes up individually. Unfortunately, I haven't seen any rule that answers that definitively. I expect to see different answers by different DMs.
wrecan 07-09-07, 11:57 AM	Not true at all. You can specify this new initiative result or just wait until some time later in the round and act then, thus fixing your new initiative count at that point.[emphasis added] Good point. however, the rules also state: You can’t, however, interrupt anyone else’s action (as you can with a readied action). To me this means you cannot declare a delay until just before another person's action. That's the province of the Ready Action. As in my scenario: SURPRISE Bernard (21): Accidentally drinks fatal poison Alice (6): Delay Carl (--): Surprised ROUND ONE Carl (rolls a 4): Acts Alice cannot announce her delayed action once Carl acts, for that would be interrupting Carl's action. Alice cannot know when it is that Carl acts. To me the answer is: Using delay as your action inthe surprise round allows you to resestablish your initiative count during the first round at any time after the first person in the round acts. So for the following scenarios, my answer would be: SURPRISE (No Delay -- Base Scenario) Bernard (21): Act Alice (6): Act. Carl (--): Surprised. FIRST ROUND: Bernard (21): Full action. Alice (20): Full action. Carl (4): Full action. SURPRISE (Basic Delay) Bernard (21): Act Alice (6): Delay. Carl (--): Surprised. FIRST ROUND: Bernard (21): Full action. Alice (20): Full action. Carl (4): Full action. SURPRISE (Double delay): Bernard (21): Delay. Alice (6): Delay. Carl (--): Surprised. FIRST ROUND. Bernard (21): Full action or continue delay. Alice (6): Full action or continue delay. Carl (4): Full Action (assuming he is not still surprised). SURPRISE (Bernard died): Bernard (21): Drink poison and die Alice (6): Delay. Carl (--): Surprised. FIRST ROUND. Alice (6): Full action or continue delay. Carl (4): Full Action (assuming he is not still surprised). SURPRISE (Quick Carl, Carl rolls a 20!) Bernard (18): Act Alice (6): Delay. Carl (--): Surprised. FIRST ROUND. Carl (20): Full action. Alice (19): Full action. Bernard (18): Full Action (assuming he is not still surprised). SURPRISE (Quick Carl, No Bernard) Alice (6): Delay. Carl (--): Surprised. FIRST ROUND. Carl (20): Full action. Alice (19): Full action.
Some_call_me_Tim 07-09-07, 12:05 PM	Sure, but to be honest you cannot know my "initiative roll" until I show you... how can you say "I will act before him" if you don't know when my turn will come?The rules let me "act normally on whatever initiative count you decide to act." I choose initiative count 1000. Does he beat me? No. Then I act before him. I find no problem using the rules to be able to act before anyone in the first regular round of combat. The only problem is whether you are taking your standard action from the surprise round or do you get a full round action because you are now in the first regular round. And more important... If you act before anyone else you're still in the surprise round. The regular round start when the first creature actNot if you are the highest initiative count. Each round’s activity begins with the character with the highest initiative result and then proceeds, in order, from there. Again the rules don't prevent you from doing this. The only question is do you get a normal round worth of actions or a standard action only because that is what you delayed.
Some_call_me_Tim 07-09-07, 12:23 PM	Good point. however, the rules also state: You can’t, however, interrupt anyone else’s action (as you can with a readied action). To me this means you cannot declare a delay until just before another person's action. That's the province of the Ready Action. The only difficulty, as has already been pointed out, is knowing when another character is going. That depends on whether the initiative counts are kept secret or not. As far as I can tell, the rules are silent on whether they should be kept secret. I've seen DMs run both ways on the question. I have no problem with characters delaying until just before someone else goes. This reflects the advantage that someone who is reacting faster to the situation (higher initiative count) would have. When they do go, they go just before and therefore are not "interrupting" them as a readied action would.
Marcus Majarra 07-09-07, 12:42 PM	The way I see this question, is when are actions "replenished"? At the beginning of the round for everyone or when your turn comes up individually. Unfortunately, I haven't seen any rule that answers that definitively. I have: When a character’s turn comes up in the initiative sequence, that character performs his entire round’s worth of actions. Source: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#theCombatRound Actions replenish when your turn come up in the initiative order, not at the beginning of the round. Furthermore, the SRD also covers the two possible exception cases that arise when you delay into a new round: If you come to your next action and have not yet performed an action, you don’t get to take a delayed action (though you can delay again). If you take a delayed action in the next round, before your regular turn comes up, your initiative count rises to that new point in the order of battle, and you do not get your regular action that round. Source: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialInitiativeActions.htm#delay The first sentence explains what happens if you delay your action, but don't take them before your next turn comes up: you forfeit the action you delayed. The second sentence explains what happens if you delay your action, but take them before your next initiative: you get to make your delayed action, but forfeit your regular action for that round. Well, hold on. Let's say Alice and Bernard surprise Carl. Both ALice and Bernard have a +2 to initiative Alice rols a 4 (6 total) and Bernard rolls a 20 (22 total) for initiative in the surprise round. Alice decides to delay, so that her next action takes place at the 21 cound in initiative, right after Bernard. This means it's very likely she'll go before Carl in the regular combat. Bernard takes his surprise action. Now Carl rolls his initiative. He ends up rolling a 5 modified. Bernard goes first. He takes a full attack. Thanks to Alice's delay, she should go next. Should she get a full attack? She essentially used her surprise action to set up for an earlier full attack. Real combat has begun, since Bernard already full attacked. Carl is going to get a full attack. Why can't Alice? Ironically, if she hadn't delayed, she'd have gotten to use a full attack before Bernard (as well as a surprise attack). Somehow, holding off on an attack means she doesn't even get the normal combat round? Because she decided not to take a chance to give Carl a chance to act before her. In other words: she took her surprise action (which is the only action for which she is guaranteed that Carl will not act before her). She would've gained the ability to make a full round's worth of actions when her turn came up on the initiative sequence on the normal round, but she didn't know if it would come before or after Carl's initiative. Here's something interesting from the SRD regarding combat rounds: For almost all purposes, there is no relevance to the end of a round or the beginning of a round. A round can be a segment of game time starting with the first character to act and ending with the last, but it usually means a span of time from one round to the same initiative count in the next round. Emphasis added in bold. Source: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#theCombatRound It makes no sense that actions be awarded on account of when you take your delayed actions, because you always need exactly 1 round to gain a new round's worth of actions. Since characters get their full round's worth of actions when their turn comes up in the initiative sequence, it's safe to assume that these are all the actions they get for their round (i.e. until the same initiative count on the subsequent round). Delaying should not enable them to get more actions than they would normally be allowed for that entire window of time (as, obviously, more actions require more time). Effectively, delaying is but a way to see what's going to happen before you choose to act.
Some_call_me_Tim 07-09-07, 02:27 PM	When a character’s turn comes up in the initiative sequence, that character performs his entire round’s worth of actions. Source: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/act...theCombatRound Actions replenish when your turn come up in the initiative order, not at the beginning of the round.To me the quote merely states you can't split your actions but must take them together. As I said near the beginning of this thread I have no problem with someone sacrificing a standard action to be guaranteed to go first. I don't think that is a problem. However, the more I think about how this ruling affects other aspects it becomes more worrisome. For example, an enemy wizard casts slow on Bob the fighter. The initiatives are: 20 Wizard 8 bunch of orcs 3 Bob On the turn before slow ends Bob delays because he is at the end of the round anyway. The wizard initiative's comes and goes at 20 then Bob goes. If you let Bob take a full round action then he was slowed one round less than he should have been vs. the orcs. Which tends to say your actions replenish when your turn comes up. But on the other hand if Bob delays and a friendly cleric casts dispels magic on initiative count 2, it seems fair to allow Bob to take a full round action on count 1. Because if the cleric cast dispel magic on count 4 Bob would get a full round. :banghead: Then again what if you delay and then someone casts haste. If your actions were "replenished" when your turn came and you only get the actions you were entitled to then, you shouldn't get the extra action granted by haste. Which is just silly. The whole reason you are limited to standard actions is that you are in the surprise round. But if you delay past the surprise round you are longer restricted and should get a full round's worth of actions. :surrender It seems like either ruling will end with some odd interactions.
Gyrofthewastes 07-09-07, 03:01 PM	Good analysis, Some_call_me_Tim On the turn before slow ends Bob delays because he is at the end of the round anyway. The wizard initiative's comes and goes at 20 then Bob goes. If you let Bob take a full round action then he was slowed one round less than he should have been vs. the orcs. Which tends to say you actions replenish when your turn comes up. However, one must admit that in this case the orcs are still giving up some sort of advantage in exchange for this maneuver...they allow the wizard extra action before their own by the delay. And further compound this by the fact that there is little way to determine what the wizard's caster level is, and thus when the spell ends so... (I don't know actually. It's not like it's complete metagaming cheese exactly?)
Some_call_me_Tim 07-09-07, 08:08 PM	I did run across an interesting quote from the DMG (p. 23) that may shed light on how the designers intended the surprise round to work. When only one side is aware of the other, the DM rusns the first round of combat as a surprise round. In this round, each character gets only a standard action. Only those aware of the other side can take any action at all. This rule reflects the fact that even when a combatant is prepared, some amount of time is spent assessing the situation, and thus only standard actions are allowed to begin with. This rule makes initiative have less of an impact, since it is in the first round when initiative matters most. Even if a warrior gets the jump on an opponent, at best he can make a single attack against a foe before that foe can react. The last sentence seems say the designers only wanted a single action before the other party has at least a chance to react. By allowing a delay into first normal round of combat you've basically eliminated that chance. Methinks I will flip-flop on this issue and say you can't delay past end of the surprise round as a house rule. I remember this came up months ago and the situation actually never came up in play. Usually the high-level rogue figures he can beat everyone's initiative anyway.
wrecan 07-09-07, 09:02 PM	Good catch, Some Call Me Tim!
Lootus 07-09-07, 10:17 PM	The last sentence seems say the designers only wanted a single action before the other party has at least a chance to react. By allowing a delay into first normal round of combat you've basically eliminated that chance. I was going to cite it as well. I see it as further evidence that the surprise round is intended to be separate from the first regular round (for purposes of delaying, if nothing else). The article by Skip Williams that I quoted also supports this idea. Here's some more from that section in the DMG (pg. 22): "...gets to take a standard action before initiative is rolled" (and then...) "After this action, both sides make initiative checks to determine the order in which the participants act." "Caught unaware, the party can do nothing but roll saving throws. Once the damage from the spell is assessed, both sides roll initiative." Jumping back to the PHB (pg. 136-137): "If some but not all of the combatants are aware of their opponents, a surprise round happens before regular rounds begin." and, "At the start of a battle, each combatant makes an initiative check." So, here's how I imagine this coming to be: DESIGN MEETING FOR 3.5 RULEBOOK, TOPIC: SURPRISE ATTACKS (Designers A & B meet to discuss this part of the rules.) Designer A: "How are we handling surprise attacks?" Designer B: "We're using the rule that the aware opponents each get a free standard action." Designer A: "Oh, ok. Sounds great. So it's like some sort of 'Surprise Round'?" Designer B: "Well, not really. It's limited to just a standard action; it's not part of regular combat." Designer A: "I see. So, how do you determine the order in which these characters act? That could be important, right?" Designer B: "Well, they could go in order of Dex, highest to lowest...or they could roll initiative to determine who can act first, kind of like they get their own 'mini-round' before everyone is aware of each other..." Designer A: "That sounds good, it uses the same rules as normal rounds, it'll be easy to remember." THE NEXT DAY... (Designer C approaches the desk of Designer B, looking clearly upset.) Designer C: "What's this "Surprise Round" all about?? I thought we were getting rid of having to roll initiative multiple times during an encounter? Why can't the characters just keep their surprise rolls once the first round starts?" Designer A: "Well, we wanted to keep it separate from regular rounds, because the surprise round has a special restriction that you can only take a standard action." Designer C: "Um...and? Your point is? I'm trying to reduce dice rolls here, people! I'm talking wasted game time, unnecessary wear and tear on dice, carpal tunnel!! Look at the big picture!" Designer A: "I guess I can't argue with that. What harm could it possibly do? Just a tiny change to a line on page 133 should do the trick..." :D To summarize: As of right now, I believe the answer is that the following line (or some variation thereof) is missing from the rules: You cannot delay an action from a surprise round into the first regular round.
Marcus Majarra 07-09-07, 10:21 PM	I would still allow to delay into the first regular round, although I consider delaying to merely be waiting to act at a later point. You don't get any more or less actions by delaying; you merely choose to act after someone else has. The longer you wait, the longer you deny yourself the chance to act.
JustinA 07-10-07, 12:23 AM	When you delay, you're delaying a specific set of actions (referred to as the "delayed action" in PHB160). Let's see: (1) You say something that's not true; (2) I point out that it's not true and quote the rulebook; (3) You repeat the thing that's not true. Well, that does it for this discussion. There's nothing else I can say that will stop you from repeating the same erroneous information as if it were gospel. But on the off-chance that others might be saved from endorsing your mistake... The RAW is quite clear: (1) You can delay your turn from one round to the next. (2) When you take your turn you take your action normally as if that were your initiative count. The conclusion which can be drawn from these two data points is quite clear. 'Nuff said. Justin Alexander http://www.thealexandrian.net
Leilond 07-10-07, 03:35 AM	The Marcus point is very valid When you delay you forgive your actions to take them later. During your surprise round you can take only a standard action, so if you delay, you'll take that standard action later. If you're the only one that can act in the surprise round and you obtain a poor "1" with your D20, it sounds really unfair (and surely meatagaming) to "delay to initiative 25", because you are simply forcing the rule obtain more than the dice concede to you. This is the final effect Without delay Alica (1) : standard action Calr (--): surprised Carl (10): full round action Alicia (1): full round action Carl (10): full round action Final effect: A_Standard, C_Full, A_Full Delay Alicia(1): delay Alicia(20): full round action Carl (10): full round action Alicia (1): full round action Final effect: A_Full, C_Full, A_Full As you see, chosing to delay becomes an huge advantage instead of being, as page 160 of the PHB say, losing something to obtain something eles. Here you do not lose ANYTHING, you obtain only advantages. It is completely out of the rule intentions, it is clear as the sun, and it is pure metagaming, because the "initiative number" is only a representation and a player cannot chose to delay basing on it, because if the opponents are surprised the character cannot know if he's quick or slow, only the opponent reactions will show. For instance, if Alicia obtain a "20" with his dice, she won't probably delay, because the chance to make a standard attack in the surprise round and a full attack in the first round will be high, while she will sure delay if she obtain a "1". This is completely metagaming. At this point, to prevent any of this clear abuse, uninteded by the spirit of the rules, you can chose some ways 1) No delay "to be the first" of the round. 2) Use the optional rule suggested in the DMG that make you reroll initiative after the surprise round (very good solution). 3) Do not let you delay from surprise round to regular round (another very good solution) 4) If you delay during the surprise round, you'll obtain only a standard action in the regular round (that sound to be the more consistent with the rules)
Marcus Majarra 07-10-07, 12:23 PM	Let's see: (1) You say something that's not true; (2) I point out that it's not true and quote the rulebook; (3) You repeat the thing that's not true. [...] The RAW is quite clear: (1) You can delay your turn from one round to the next. (2) When you take your turn you take your action normally as if that were your initiative count. The conclusion which can be drawn from these two data points is quite clear. For the first set, I actually provided quotes from the rulebook referring to the "delayed action." The quote you refer to is, by far, the more ambiguous one. For the second set, that (2) clause is stated incorrectly. The rulebook indicates that you "act normally on whatever initiative count you decide to act", not "act normally as if that were your initiative count." In fact, the rulebook even goes so far as to say what exactly happens when you delay from one round into the next. You shouldn't conveniently ignore evidence against your claims just because it proves you wrong. "Acting normally" is an ambiguous statement, as you don't have a clear reference in that statement as to which context "acting normally" refers to. You say it refers to the temporal context in which the delayed action is taken, but you have no evidence to support this. I, on the other hand, supplied evidence that "acting normally" refers to the action that was delayed in the first place.
Jackmojo 07-10-07, 12:29 PM	The Marcus point is very valid When you delay you forgive your actions to take them later. During your surprise round you can take only a standard action, so if you delay, you'll take that standard action later. If you're the only one that can act in the surprise round and you obtain a poor "1" with your D20, it sounds really unfair (and surely meatagaming) to "delay to initiative 25", because you are simply forcing the rule obtain more than the dice concede to you. This is the final effect Without delay Alica (1) : standard action Calr (--): surprised Carl (10): full round action Alicia (1): full round action Carl (10): full round action Final effect: A_Standard, C_Full, A_Full Delay Alicia(1): delay Alicia(20): full round action Carl (10): full round action Alicia (1): full round action Final effect: A_Full, C_Full, A_Full As you see, chosing to delay becomes an huge advantage instead of being, as page 160 of the PHB say, losing something to obtain something eles. Here you do not lose ANYTHING, you obtain only advantages. It is completely out of the rule intentions, it is clear as the sun, and it is pure metagaming, because the "initiative number" is only a representation and a player cannot chose to delay basing on it, because if the opponents are surprised the character cannot know if he's quick or slow, only the opponent reactions will show. For instance, if Alicia obtain a "20" with his dice, she won't probably delay, because the chance to make a standard attack in the surprise round and a full attack in the first round will be high, while she will sure delay if she obtain a "1". This is completely metagaming. At this point, to prevent any of this clear abuse, uninteded by the spirit of the rules, you can chose some ways 1) No delay "to be the first" of the round. 2) Use the optional rule suggested in the DMG that make you reroll initiative after the surprise round (very good solution). 3) Do not let you delay from surprise round to regular round (another very good solution) 4) If you delay during the surprise round, you'll obtain only a standard action in the regular round (that sound to be the more consistent with the rules) Your example is incorrect for delaying as you have Alicia acting at two different intiative counts (and delaying permanently changes you place in the intiative order) and gave her two turns in one round, so the correct comparison should be (I'm adding round breaks to make it clearer, plus adding one round to show it more clearly): Without delay Alica (1) : standard action Carl (--): surprised end round Carl (10): full round action Alicia (1): full round action end round Carl (10): full round action Alicia (1): full round action end round Final effect: A_Standard; end round; C_Full, A_Full; end round Delay Alicia(1): delay end round Alicia(20): full round action Carl (10): full round action end round Alicia (20): full round action Carl (10): full round action end round Final effect: No one acts; end round; A_Full, C_Full; end round; A_Full, C_Full; end round So she loses one standard or move action to increase her intiative count (which if your enemies are tough enough to last a few rounds or have sufficiently unpredictable initiative values shouldn't be a problem), that sounds like it should be a valid choice to me. Keep in mind that no matter how bad she rolls, she has no idea what you rolled or what the intitive order is, so she might be sacrificing the surprise round for no advantage at all. Jack
olshanski_home 07-10-07, 12:38 PM	I think delaying in the surprise round to guarantee a full-round action is a perfectly valid technique.
Marcus Majarra 07-10-07, 01:01 PM	I'm adding round breaks to make it clearer Except that round breaks are not relevant to the number of actions you're entitled to. You get to perform your actions for the round when your turn comes up in the initiative sequence, and delaying merely means you're taking these actions at a later time. You get no more and no less actions by delaying into a new round, because your actions are not replenished when a combat round begins.
Anathema 07-10-07, 02:10 PM	Can we agree at this point that it can be seen both ways, and that both ways have valid interpretations? I really think this is one of those gray areas we're working with, where there is no clear intent of the rules, and that it's up to the DM to make the call. I don't really see any new arguments to be made, and though I don't agree that delaying your surprise round action means you only get a standard action, but I understand the position, and agree there is evidence to support this. Due to lack of obvious intent, can we leave this one up to the DM, instead of arguing for 10 pages over something that is ultimately unprovable?
Jackmojo 07-10-07, 02:23 PM	Except that round breaks are not relevant to the number of actions you're entitled to. You get to perform your actions for the round when your turn comes up in the initiative sequence, and delaying merely means you're taking these actions at a later time. You get no more and no less actions by delaying into a new round, because your actions are not replenished when a combat round begins. I get your point, mine was that Leilond had allowed one of his example characters to act twice in one round at two different intiative counts though. I disagree with how your reading delaying though (much as anathema so politely stated). Jack
Timori 07-10-07, 09:47 PM	Here's how I see it... Ally 1 and Ally 2 surprise Enemy 1 and Enemy 2. Ally 1 delays his move in the surprise round. Ally 2 attacks in the surprise round. At this point (still in the surprise round) Ally 1 needs to either act or continue delaying. If he acts, he's in the surprise round. If he delays, the next round begins... Whoever has the highest init acts next. Ally 1 can't act before him (he just delayed remember). He could act immediately after though, or at any point from there on. As I see it, Ally 1 either ends his delay in the surprise round or after the next round has begun. He cannot be the first in the next round because he has stated he is delaying at the very end of the surprise round, which is also the very beginning of the first round. There is no need for a rules rewrite, temporal shifting or suspension of common sense.
Leilond 07-11-07, 03:16 AM	Your example is incorrect for delaying as you have Alicia acting at two different intiative counts (and delaying permanently changes you place in the intiative order) and gave her two turns in one round, so the correct comparison should be (I'm adding round breaks to make it clearer, plus adding one round to show it more clearly): Without delay Alica (1) : standard action Carl (--): surprised end round Carl (10): full round action Alicia (1): full round action end round Carl (10): full round action Alicia (1): full round action end round Final effect: A_Standard; end round; C_Full, A_Full; end round Delay Alicia(1): delay end round Alicia(20): full round action Carl (10): full round action end round Alicia (20): full round action Carl (10): full round action end round Final effect: No one acts; end round; A_Full, C_Full; end round; A_Full, C_Full; end round So she loses one standard or move action to increase her intiative count (which if your enemies are tough enough to last a few rounds or have sufficiently unpredictable initiative values shouldn't be a problem), that sounds like it should be a valid choice to me. Keep in mind that no matter how bad she rolls, she has no idea what you rolled or what the intitive order is, so she might be sacrificing the surprise round for no advantage at all. Jack Round break isn't important at all The final effect will be Without delaying A_Standard, C_Full, A_Full, C_Full, A_Full, C_Full... and so on Delaying A_Full, C_Full, A_Full, C_Full, A_Full, C_Full... and so on It doesn't matter when the "turn end", because it doesn't exist a "turn end" at all. As the manual say, the turn is the time that pass from one initiative count to the same initiative count later. In the situation I pointed, delaying the action simply give you "more action" and it's clear that this isn't the intent of the rule It isn't belivable that in the rule intent you can obtain more actions using a delay action So, accepting that "semantically and sintattically" the two interpretation can be right (I don't think so, but I talk like I accept it), one of those two interpretation create a consequence (delay give you more actions) that is out of rule intent, the only logical things is to use the one that do not create that lack of conistence with the rest of the rules
artgrtr8u 07-11-07, 08:14 AM	Here's how I see it... Ally 1 and Ally 2 surprise Enemy 1 and Enemy 2. Ally 1 delays his move in the surprise round. Ally 2 attacks in the surprise round. At this point (still in the surprise round) Ally 1 needs to either act or continue delaying. If he acts, he's in the surprise round. If he delays, the next round begins... Whoever has the highest init acts next. Ally 1 can't act before him (he just delayed remember). He could act immediately after though, or at any point from there on. As I see it, Ally 1 either ends his delay in the surprise round or after the next round has begun. He cannot be the first in the next round because he has stated he is delaying at the very end of the surprise round, which is also the very beginning of the first round. There is no need for a rules rewrite, temporal shifting or suspension of common sense. This is an important point. A character can't really say "I'm delaying until the first initiative count in the next (non-suprise) round", that's meta. All a character can do is say "I'm delaying", then, after each other character goes, decide whether they are ready to take their action or not.
StevenO 07-11-07, 01:34 PM	Maybe this has been mentioned but did refocusing go away in 3.5? Using this instead of other actions effectively set your initiative roll to 20 in later rounds. Using it during the surprise round should be legal but it does allow for the possibility that someone else still gets to go first due to higher initiative modifiers. It may be the equivalent of delaying and doing so during the surprise round is effectively delaying until the character gets its full attack. Note that delaying may not alway be an effect tactic for a surprising rogue. Some times it will be more important to take opportunity to move into position otherwise you'll waste your first full action moving before getting an attack off. On to initiative modifiers: Delaying: A character waits, letting its initiative count drop, until it decides to act. The character acts last on the count it finally does decide to act. Ready Action: A character waits, count dropping as before, until the action is triggered. This interrupts that action and set the characters initiative to the same spot as the trigger but acting before it.
Jackmojo 07-11-07, 02:35 PM	Round break isn't important at all The final effect will be Without delaying A_Standard, C_Full, A_Full, C_Full, A_Full, C_Full... and so on Delaying A_Full, C_Full, A_Full, C_Full, A_Full, C_Full... and so on It doesn't matter when the "turn end", because it doesn't exist a "turn end" at all. As the manual say, the turn is the time that pass from one initiative count to the same initiative count later. Turn end mattered because if you check your example above you had one of your characters acting twice at two different Initiative counts. In the situation I pointed, delaying the action simply give you "more action" and it's clear that this isn't the intent of the rule It isn't belivable that in the rule intent you can obtain more actions using a delay action No one is obtaining any extra actions, in every case they are losing an action, thats the other reason I added the round breaks it helps illustrate the lost action better. Lets imagine that combat will only last 5 rounds do to some external condition. If the surpriser skips their surprise round for an initiative advantage they have lost that action (functionally they used it to increase their initiative for whatever reason by delaying to the next round), then they will only get 4 full rounds worth of actual actions, whereas if they had acted they would get four full rounds + the one standard or move action of the surprise round. Quite clearly they are not gaining any actions since they end up with less of them! Jack P.S. Of course none of this stuff matters unless the Character delaying receives some benefit such as the rogues sneak attack that is materially improved by acting first but not in the surprise round, since thats the only time one would ever encounter this.
Lootus 07-11-07, 06:28 PM	Actually, I think I've solved it (that is, come up with an interpretation I feel comfortable with, but which admittedly is not necessarily the best way to do it). In section 1, I am trying to make sure I am on the same page as the reader regarding how delay is supposed to be played (Section 3 has the end results). 1. By choosing to delay, you take no action and then act normally on whatever initiative count you decide to act. Examine the following options. Which of the following are intended to be valid statements (whether or not the player spells it out)? A) “I delay. I am not going to specify when I will act just yet. When (and if) I decide to act, my action will need to conform to the situation as it applies in my new initiative, instead of my original initiative.” B) “I delay. I will act After X/Before Y. When I act, my action will need to conform to the situation as it applies in my new initiative, instead of my original initiative.” C) “I state my action (as if I was acting now), and I delay this action. I am not going to specify when I will act just yet. When (and if) I decide to act, my action has already been chosen and stated, and cannot be changed.” D) “I state my action (as if I was acting now), and I delay this action. I will act After X/Before Y. When I act, my action has already been chosen and stated, and cannot be changed.” E) “I delay my action. I am not going to specify when I will act just yet. When (and if) I decide to act, this action conforms to the situation as it applies to my original initiative, not my new initiative. I cannot take an action in my new initiative that I could not have taken in my original initiative.” F) “I delay my action. I will act After X/Before Y. When I act, this action conforms to the situation as it applies to my original initiative, not my new initiative. I cannot take an action in my new initiative that I could not have taken in my original initiative.” I don’t think I saw anyone arguing that only C and D are valid. C and D are like a hybrid between Delay and Ready, with the worst of each. It basically defeats the purpose of the Delay action (waiting to see what’s going to happen). If you said only E and F are valid, then we have the obvious problem: What happens when something changes between when you stated your delay (your original initiative) and when you act? Due to the nature of combat, the possibilities are almost limitless here: it stops raining, someone becomes visible, your opponent dies/moves, a spell effect begins or ends, your terrain changes, etc. IMO, the PHB is intending for players to use only A and B. 2. When you delay, you voluntarily reduce your own initiative result for the rest of the combat. I think that this is uncontested. It’s saying if you delay from 15 to 6, your initiative becomes 6. (This is just an overview sentence, as it goes into more detail below.) 3. When your new, lower initiative count comes up later in the same round, you can act normally. Again, if you said only E and F are valid in part 1, then we have the same problem. You decide to ‘act normally’ based on your original initiative, whereas any other participants are ‘acting normally’ based on the current situation and conditions. It’s more like you’re hitting Pause and Play then waiting to act. 4. You can specify this new initiative result or just wait until some time later in the round and act then, thus fixing your new initiative count at that point. As shown in part 1, if you want to, you always have the option to either state up front the way you want to change your place in the order of battle, or just wait. As stated in part 2, your initiative changes when you take your delayed action. Uncontested? The ambiguity of this sentence is a major nuisance. For my purposes though, I have to work out an interpretation: “You can specify this new initiative result” - The “new initiative result” you specify has to be based on reference to the initiative results of participants who have already taken an action. You don’t know (can’t act on information about) any initiative result other than your own that hasn’t happened yet. While seeing all numbers ahead of time may be convenient for game purposes, it causes issues when this information is used for choosing when you will act, instead of basing this decision on the relative positions of participants in the order of battle. “some time later in the round” – “the round” is the frame of time during which participants take or do not take actions. When you delay, you wait. Due to the abstract and cyclical nature of initiative and rounds, if you are B in the sequence ABC, and you delay to B ½, you haven’t waited for anything or changed any order. So “some time” really means “some time After X/Before Y”, where both X and Y have already taken actions. You don’t have to specify what it is you’re waiting for, but you can’t interrupt an action that hasn’t happened yet either. You can’t wait to see what Bob does and then choose to go after Bob, but before Carl, who hasn’t acted. Yes, you got to wait and see what Bob did, but you can’t interrupt Carl’s action by choosing to go before him, because you don’t know when he’s going to act. And by the time he acts, it’s too late to go before him. Here’s my crappy example: Alice & Bob vs. Carl (Carl’s initiative secret), First regular round (no surprise) Alice (15): “I delay. I want to wait and go right after Bob.” Bob (10): “Attack Carl.” Alice: “Ok, I’m taking my action now.” DM: “What are you talking about?” Alice: “Bob just went, I’m delaying until right after he goes.” DM: “You’re already positioned to go right after Bob.“ Alice: “Yeah, but I want to go right after Bob, before Carl gets a chance to go.” DM: “You can’t interrupt someone else’s actions with delay.” Alice: “I’m not, just put me in 10, after Bob goes.” DM: “I told you, as of this moment, you’re already in position to go after Bob. Your initiative number is just a marker to indicate the order in which each participant takes an action. Since you can’t interrupt Carl, you’ll have to wait until after he goes before taking your action. Therefore, there’s no point in changing you to 10.” Alice: “But I want to go in 10, because that will give me a better chance to go before Carl.” DM: “You got a chance to act and you chose to wait until after Bob. Carl hasn’t had a chance to go yet, and you want to interrupt him by delaying. You’re trying to use delay in order to trump his initiative to allow yourself to do it. Next round, you will know where both Bob and Carl are placed in the order of battle, and you can delay to go after Bob but before Carl. Right now, you don’t know if Carl will even do anything. As far as you know, your original initiative is up next, and you’re still going to act before Carl goes. Are you saying you want to act more before him? Like I said, the initiative number is just a marker to indicate the order in which each participant takes an action. So how can you say you’re acting before or after him?” Alice: “What if Carl doesn’t do anything this round? Do I lose my action?” DM: “Not really, because if that happens, you would be up next in the order. You’d still be acting right after Bob, just like you wanted.” Alice: “Can I retract my delay?” DM: “Yes, I think we’re all better off that way…” :) 5. You never get back the time you spend waiting to see what’s going to happen. You can’t, however, interrupt anyone else’s action (as you can with a readied action). You can't wait until after someone takes an action to decide whether or not to act before them. If they are acting, it means you lost your opportunity to go before them. Uncontested? 6. Initiative Consequences of Delaying: Your initiative result becomes the count on which you took the delayed action. Again, they really want to make sure you know that your initiative changes when you delay. Uncontested? 7. If you come to your next action and have not yet performed an action, you don’t get to take a delayed action (though you can delay again). Delay doesn’t let you ‘save up’ your actions. I think what they are trying to say is limited to this exact example: Round 1 You roll initiative and get a 15. On 15, you delay. The other participants take their actions. The turn ends - you never took an action (other than delaying). Round 2 Your initiative remains 15. On 15, you cannot take both your action from last turn and your action from this turn. Uncontested? 8. If you take a delayed action in the next round, before your regular turn comes up, your initiative count rises to that new point in the order of battle, and you do not get your regular action that round. This sentence is evil. Anyway, here is my crack at it: If your delayed action happens after a new round begins, your original initiative result is replaced by the higher number instead of a lower number (as is the case when your delayed action happens later in the same round). You don’t get to go again later on in that round. The last sentence of Delay mentions the “order of battle”. The “order of battle” is a list, sorted by initiative, of all participants who have taken an action in the combat. It doesn’t matter what your initiative result is. Until you take an action, you do not have a place in the order of battle (in other words, you haven’t actually joined in the battle until you have done something). You could have rolled an initiative of 72, but if you did nothing the entire combat, you never had a place in the order of battle. Delay means you re-position yourself in the order of battle by waiting to act. Delay therefore means you choose to act after someone else who has already gone, and before someone else who has already gone. This is the golden key. You can’t choose to go after/before someone who has not yet taken an action, because you don’t know when (or if) they will act. If they do act, you can’t choose to act before them in response (see Section 1, part 5). So here are some examples of situations, and what would happen: Example 1 (no surprise round): 1st regular round of combat: Alice (15) Bob (12) Carl (6) Alice is up first. Bob and Carl haven’t gone yet. Alice cannot move her place in the order of battle because that requires there to be two other participants who have already gone. She cannot delay to go After Bob/Before Carl, since Carl hasn't gone yet. By the time Carl goes, it will be too late to choose to go before him (see Section 1 – you can’t interrupt another’s action). If Alice delays, she will give up her turn until next round. Alice decides to attack Carl. Bob attacks Carl. Carl attacks Bob. 2nd regular round of combat: Alice (15) Bob (12) Carl (6) Alice is up. She will now delay to go After Bob/Before Carl. This is her only possible delay (other than doing nothing until the next round). She is waiting to see what Bob is going to do. She'll end up going in 12 (but after Bob). ________________________________________ Example 2 (no surprise round): 1st regular round of combat: Alice (15) Bob (12) Buck (8) Carl (6) Arty (3) Alice is up. She attacks Carl. Bob attacks Carl. Two participants have now taken actions. Buck delays. Carl attacks Alice (Buck didn’t know when Carl was going to act, and can't interrupt him). Now that Carl has taken an action, Buck may now choose to go, placing himself After Carl/Before Alice. He will do this. Buck goes in 6 (after Carl), and attacks Alice. Updated initiative (still in 1st round): Alice (15) Bob (12) Carl (6), Buck (6) Arty (3) Arty's up. If he chooses to delay, the soonest he can act will be after Alice acts in the next round. His initiative result already places him between Buck and Alice in the order of battle, so he can't use delay to tweak around his initiative to, say, 1 (this round), or 35 (in the next round). He wouldn't actually be changing his order in the battle (nor would he be waiting to see what's going to happen before acting, which is the point of delay in the first place). The only thing this would accomplish is to screw up initiative for any newcomers. So Arty goes. He attacks Alice. 2nd regular round of combat: Alice (15) Bob (12) Carl (6), Buck (6) Arty (3) Alice is up. She can do the following with delay: a) Delay until sometime later in the round. If she hasn’t acted before Arty goes, she'll lose her chance to act this round. b) State when she is going to act later in the round. Her 3 choices are: After Bob/Before Carl, After Carl/Before Buck, After Buck/Before Arty. Alice states she is going to act After Bob/Before Carl. Bob is up. Bob delays. Carl is now up. Carl attacks Alice. Alice was waiting to see what Bob was going to do. She’s wants to act right after Bob, whenever Bob decides to act. If Bob doesn't do anything this round, or delays until after Arty, Alice doesn't do anything this round. If this happens, and it gets back to Alice in round 3, then Alice can stop waiting on Bob and do something else. Alternate version: Bob doesn't delay, but instead attacks Carl and kills him. Alice's stated delay is now invalid, but since she knew Carl's place in the order of battle, she will still act after Bob. ________________________________________ Example 3 (no surprise round, unaware newcomers): Alice and Bob have been fighting Carl for 5 rounds: Alice (15) Bob (12) Carl (6) Suddenly, Buck and Arty show up. They never saw this coming, but now they want a piece of the action. They can't immediately act - they must join the battle between rounds (per DMG). The next round starts, and Buck and Arty roll initiative. 6th regular round of combat: Alice (15) Bob (12) Buck (8) Carl (6) Arty (3) Alice is up. Her delay options are: a) Wait before deciding which two participants (that have already acted) she is acting After/Before (except After Arty/Before Bob, because that’s where she is now). b) State when she is going to act later in the round. Her only choice right now is: After Bob/Before Carl. She doesn't know when (or if) the newcomers are going to go yet. She delays, and chooses option a. Bob attacks Carl. Alice can change her place in the order of battle to go After Bob/Before Carl, which would place her in 12 (after Bob). But Alice chooses to continue to delay instead. Buck attacks Alice. Alice had no way of knowing Buck's place in the order of battle, since he hadn't taken an action yet. Alice can't interrupt Buck with her delay. Now that Buck has acted, Alice can now choose to place herself After Buck/Before Carl (she would go in 8, after Buck). However, she continues to delay. Carl attacks Alice. Alice is already placed After Carl/Before Bob, so she still can't change her order in the battle, because she has no way of knowing Arty's place in the order of battle, as he hasn't taken an action yet. So as far as she knows, she is still going to act next after Carl. She must continue to delay. Arty attacks Alice. Alice can’t interrupt Arty with her delay. Alice still can't change her place in the order, because she's already placed between Arty and Bob. The round ends, and Alice ends up losing her action for the round. This may seem strange, because it means you can't choose to act After X/Before Y, if Y hasn't gone yet. The reason is, since Y hasn't done anything yet, they don't have a place in the order of battle, so you can't reposition your action around theirs. Until someone acts, they are a non-factor in the delay equation for the other participants. The end result is that Alice can't reposition herself using either Buck or Arty's actions as a reference to their places in the order of battle until after they act. Once they have taken actions, Alice can reposition herself using their actions as references to their places in the order of battle. ________________________________________ Example 4 (with surprise round): Carl surprises Alice and Bob. Surprise round: Carl (6) Alice & Bob (--) Carl can't use delay to reposition himself in the order of battle yet, because nobody else has done anything. Still, he chooses to delay. Alice & Bob are surprised. 1st regular round: Alice (15) Bob (12) Carl (6) Alice takes a full attack on Carl. Carl had no way of knowing Alice's place in the order of battle, since she hadn't taken an action yet. Carl can't interrupt Alice with his delay. He must continue to delay. As far as Carl knows, he's going to act next after Alice. Bob now takes a full attack on Carl. Carl can't interrupt Bob with his delay, so he must continue to delay. Carl is already placed After Bob/Before Alice, so he still can't change his place in the order of battle. Carl now goes in 6. He now has the option to delay again, potentially changing his place in the order to After Alice/Before Bob. End result: Carl lost his surprise round and gained no advantage by delaying from the surprise round into the 1st regular round. ________________________________________ Example 5 (with surprise round, version 2): Alice and Bob surprise Carl. Surprise round: Alice (15) Bob (12) Carl (--) Alice delays. She knows she won't get to go again until the next round, but she wants to see what Bob does. Bob attacks Carl. Carl is surprised. 1st regular round: Alice (15) Bob (12) Carl (6) Alice didn't do anything but delay through the surprise round, but now she's up first and can take a full attack on Carl. Bob also takes a full attack on Carl. Carl takes a full attack on Alice. End result: Alice gave up her surprise action and got to take her full round action first in the next round, but she was going to be able to go first anyway. She lost her surprise action and gained no advantage by delaying from the surprise round into the 1st regular round. ________________________________________ Example 6 (with surprise round, version 3): Alice and Bob surprise Carl. Surprise round: Alice (15) Bob (12) Carl (--) Alice delays. She knows she won't get to go again until the next round, but she wants to see what Bob does. Bob attacks Carl. Carl is surprised. 1st regular round: Carl (18) Alice (15) Bob (12) Alice is still delaying, however since Carl still hasn't taken an action, he doesn't have a place in the order of battle yet. So Alice can't choose to place herself After Bob/Before Carl. Carl takes a full attack on Alice. Alice can't interrupt Carl's action. Since Alice is already positioned to go After Carl/Before Bob, she never got the opportunity to change her place in the order of battle. She will act in 15. Alice is up. Since Bob and Carl have both acted, she will be able to use delay to change her place in the order of battle to After Bob/Before Carl. Alice delays again. Bob takes a full attack on Carl. Alice now chooses to change her place in the order of battle to After Bob/Before Carl. She acts in 12, after Bob. End result: Alice gained no advantage by delaying from the surprise round into the 1st regular round. ________________________________________ Putting it all together: A Beholder hears a group of PC’s coming down the hallway from around the corner. The Beholder floats around the corner. The Beholder is aware, PC’s are unaware. The Beholder gets surprise. Surprise round: Beholder (7) PC’s (--) The Beholder is up. He’d love to fire some rays and run back around the corner, but he knows that some, if not all of the PC’s are going to get a chance to act before he can complete this maneuver. He delays. 1st regular round: Alice (15) Bob (12) Buck (8) Beholder (7) Carl (6) Arty (3) Alice is up. She takes an action. The Beholder can’t interrupt Alice’s action. The Beholder can’t change his place in the order of battle either, because only one participant has acted, and as far as the Beholder knows, he’s going next. Bob is up. He takes an action. The Beholder didn’t know Bob was going to act next, and can’t react by interrupting him. Now there are two participants who have acted. At this point the Beholder could try to state that he wants to delay until After Bob/Before Alice, but his initiative already places him in this spot in the current order of battle, so nothing would change*. He could state he wants to act After Alice/Before Bob, but that would mean waiting until next round. So the Beholder continues to delay. Buck is up. He takes an action. Now there are three participants who have acted. The Beholder could state he wants to delay until After Buck/Before Alice, but just like last time, his initiative already places him in this spot in the current order of battle, so nothing would change. He could state he wants to act After Alice/Before Bob, or After Bob/Before Buck, but that would mean waiting until next round. The Beholder continues to delay. The Beholder is now up and can act. He’s no longer restricted by the surprise round, however he gained absolutely nothing by delaying. He simply gave up his surprise action and waited. Not the result he was looking for. He won’t be doing that again… * Since characters don’t have a big flashing initiative number floating over their heads, there wouldn’t be much point to him deciding to move up his initiative result, now would there?? :) When a player delays, have them state, “I’m acting After X/Before Y”, where both X and Y are participants in the combat that have already taken at least one action. If the player’s initiative result already places them in that order in the battle (again, only counting participants that have already taken an action), then don’t let them change their initiative result, because they wouldn’t actually be changing their order in the battle. The only purpose for this would be to artificially increase their initiative result relative to any participants who haven’t acted and any potential newcomers, which is not the purpose of delay. It would allow the character to act on the player’s knowledge of the results of initiative rolls, and possibly screw up initiative for participants who haven’t acted and any newcomers.
Leilond 07-11-07, 06:53 PM	I don't think that the rule bring to this complicate conclusion I think it's more simple You delay, and you can claim to act immediately after someone If you're in a surprise round and you delay, then you choose to act after someone that acted in the surprise round you're still in the surprise round and take only a standard action If you're in a surprise round and you delay, then you choose to act after someone that acted in the regular round you're in the regular round and you can take a full round action Thus you cannot delay to "act first in the round". You delay to act after someone else action. I think the rules work like this. And to make things less "abusable" I will simply make the players reroll their initiative for the regular round
Timori 07-11-07, 07:02 PM	Actually, I think I've solved it. Actually, I think you're totally overthinking it and confused the issue more. ;) What if... Alice delays Bob delays Carl delays. According to you, no one can end their delay as you can't go before someone who hasn't acted, so now we have a loop until a new combatant arrives. :P With Delay you aren't saying "I'm going to act between him and her", you are saying "I'm going to wait to see what happens and then decide what to do". It may be you act between him and her, but not because you knew she was going to act, but because you felt the completion of his action warrants a change in your tactics. Who comes next doesn't matter. What you can't do is pick the borderline between the round ending and the next beginning to end your delay. You either act at the end of the round, or you continue delaying into the next. Simple. If you delay into the next round you cannot be first to act, because the round ended with your delay and therefore the next person in order gets to go before you can choose to end delay.
Jackmojo 07-12-07, 03:00 PM	I don't think that the rule bring to this complicate conclusion I think it's more simple You delay, and you can claim to act immediately after someone If you're in a surprise round and you delay, then you choose to act after someone that acted in the surprise round you're still in the surprise round and take only a standard action If you're in a surprise round and you delay, then you choose to act after someone that acted in the regular round you're in the regular round and you can take a full round action Thus you cannot delay to "act first in the round". You delay to act after someone else action. I think the rules work like this. And to make things less "abusable" I will simply make the players reroll their initiative for the regular round Even though I was nitpicking on Leilond's examples earlier, I want to chime in that this is exactly how we play it in my group (excepting the re-rolling of initiative). This is far and away the easiest way to play it I would think. Jack
Marcus Majarra 07-12-07, 08:26 PM	What if... Alice delays Bob delays Carl delays. According to you, no one can end their delay as you can't go before someone who hasn't acted, so now we have a loop until a new combatant arrives. This is not true. PHB160 states that if you come to your next action and have not yet performed an action, you don't get to take a delayed action, although you can choose to delay again. Basically, this means that your delayed action is wasted if you delay for 1 round without acting, at which point you get to act normally for that round.
Timori 07-13-07, 01:05 AM	OK, true. :P But the rest is still valid. It's not who is about to act that's taken into consideration in a delay, it's who has acted. Bottom line is, you cannot delay to be first in a full turn after a surprise turn.
Lootus 07-13-07, 08:07 AM	Actually, I think you're totally overthinking it and confused the issue more. ;) Timori, I agree. :) I think my interpretation is mostly ok (certainly parts are probably flawed and need revision), but you're right that I have no business bringing a discussion about the simple delay action to this level of complication. Also, without official support, my interpretation is still just that, an interpretation. What you and others have suggested are certainly easier and more efficient solutions to the problem at hand (other confusion about delay notwithstanding). Hopefully I haven't angered/annoyed anyone too much... According to you, no one can end their delay as you can't go before someone who hasn't acted, so now we have a loop until a new combatant arrives. :P There wouldn't be an endless loop, it would just cycle back to her original initiative again... Below I have included what is (I hope) a more concise and clear example of what I was trying to get across above. One of the reasons my last post came out poorly is because I was trying to use words when pictures would have been more effective. Hopefully this is better, and will clear up the confusion I caused. The goal of this interpretation is to bring initiative into line with it's purpose as a representation of the order of battle. Segments in a round have no relation to in-game time. The 'time' between initiatives 83 and 2 is the same as the 'time' between 10 and 9. Initiative results are there to track the order of battle, not the passage of time (the DMG discusses the abstract nature of what happens in a round, and this reinforces the concept of initiative as a way to keep track of the order of battle, and nothing more). In the below example, each player has an 'initiative brick' that is placed on the board when they act (I'll add images if I get a chance). The players' characters do not know beforehand when exactly their teammate is going to act later in the round. However, for convenience of game play, we'll allow these players to both know each other's initiative results when they are rolled, and delay as if their teammates have already taken actions. They roll and come out as follows: http://www.theted.org/home/ted/playera.gif http://www.theted.org/home/ted/playerc.gif http://www.theted.org/home/ted/playerb.gif Nobody knows when their opponent (an Orc) will act (his brick hasn't been placed yet). None of the players assumes their character has the right to act before the Orc just because the Orc's initiative isn't known to them. So far, no problems. The round begins. Player A is up, and gets a chance to act first (keeping in mind the character had no way of knowing this beforehand). Player A wants to wait until after Player C acts before doing anything. Player A places his brick after Player C. Updated order: http://www.theted.org/home/ted/playerc.gif http://www.theted.org/home/ted/playera.gif http://www.theted.org/home/ted/playerb.gif Player C is up, and takes an action. So far, still no problems. Once Player C finishes, the Orc's brick is then placed after Player C. So now we have: Updated order: http://www.theted.org/home/ted/playerc.gif http://www.theted.org/home/ted/playera.gif http://www.theted.org/home/ted/orc.gif http://www.theted.org/home/ted/playerb.gif Both Player A and the Orc are acting after Player C. For purposes of the order of battle, they do not act simultaneously - one of them has to act before the other*. Since Player A can't use his delay to interrupt another's action, the Orc goes first. If Player A insists on going first, it amounts to the same end result as the player saying, "if the Orc goes, then I go before him". That would be interrupting the Orc's action after it happens, which is not allowed with delay. To repeat, Player A cannot kick the Orc out of his place in the order before the Orc is even placed in the order, because this would be reacting to the orc's action in order to time his own action. Both Player A and the Orc are acting immediately after Player C, but the Orc goes first. * normally, duplicate initiative results are resolved with the higher initiative modifier or a die roll if necessary - in this case, delay has its own rule regarding unanticipated "ties" that stem from its use. To put it in terms of initiative numbers: if Player C had an 11, and the Orc had a 10, and Player A wanted to delay and go in 10, the situation would fall under the "interrupting the Orc's action" clause, and wouldn't be allowed. Updated order: http://www.theted.org/home/ted/playerc.gif http://www.theted.org/home/ted/orc.gif http://www.theted.org/home/ted/playera.gif http://www.theted.org/home/ted/playerb.gif Player A may now act.** Note that this problem never arises unless there are participants who haven't acted yet, or a player attempts to use delay in the same way as the ready action. ** because for this example, we're letting him use delay as though his teammate has already taken an action. Otherwise, he'd be waiting until his next initiative before he could go again.
Timori 07-13-07, 09:44 AM	Both Player A and the Orc are acting after Player C. For purposes of the order of battle, they do not act simultaneously - one of them has to act before the other*. Since Player A can't use his delay to interrupt another's action, the Orc goes first. If Player A insists on going first, it amounts to the same end result as the player saying, "if the Orc goes, then I go before him". That would be interrupting the Orc's action after it happens, which is not allowed with delay. To repeat, Player A cannot kick the Orc out of his place in the order before the Orc is even placed in the order, because this would be reacting to the orc's action in order to time his own action. I see what you are saying but I disagree. :D By delaying, Player A does have the right to go first. He's not interrupting the orc, he's going before the orc. Remember he had the higher initiative, he can act before the orc if he chooses to. Now if he delayed, waited to see what the orc is going to do and then decided to act before the orc, that is interrupting and not allowed and in that circumstance he would have to move after the orc. To move before the orc legally in that case would require a readied action (e.g. "If the orc does X, Player A does Y") - not a delay.
Leilond 07-13-07, 10:02 AM	That's clear, but you cannot chose to "act before someone" before he did't rolled initiative and once the orc rolled his initiative it is his turn because it's the first of the round, and you cannot interrupt him anymore. If you act before anyone in the regular round you're still taking your surprise action of the surprise round. To act in the regular round you've to wait that the regular round starts, and the regular round statrs with the first in that round to act I reword it, so it can be more clear If you act before him, you're not in the regular round yet, he hasn't rolled his initiative and you're in the surprise round. If you let him roll his initiative and his initiative is the higher, it's his turn to act and you cannot interrupt him
Timori 07-13-07, 10:09 AM	Yup, I said as much a few posts ago. :)
Jackmojo 07-13-07, 02:41 PM	So it sounds like the consensus is that someone could indeed delay in the surprise to round, but they could, at best, act second not first in normal combat (presuming of course they had not won the intiative anyway)? That's how my group plays (not that I can recall anyone ever actually not acting in the surprise round, too few rogues I guess), and biased though I might be it seems to work fine :) Jack
Nom 07-14-07, 12:34 AM	I see what you are saying but I disagree. :D By delaying, Player A does have the right to go first. He's not interrupting the orc, he's going before the orc. Remember he had the higher initiative, he can act before the orc if he chooses to.I agree with this, sorta. Lootus seems to be assuming that "I want to act after player C" and "I want to act before player B" are identical. They're not. Even in Lootus' system, it's quite reasonable for A to want to act immediately after C, and totally legal for him to do so. What would be unreasonable would be for A to wait until he found out that the orc was about to act and then pre-empt him.
Marcus Majarra 07-16-07, 12:53 PM	So it sounds like the consensus is that someone could indeed delay in the surprise to round, but they could, at best, act second not first in normal combat (presuming of course they had not won the intiative anyway)? That seems pretty much right. Delaying is based on initiative, which isn't a measure of time as much as it is a sequence of creature activations in combat. When you're delaying, you're not saying that you're going to act in 5 seconds. You're basically saying you're going to act after another creature (i.e. in order to see what's going to happen before deciding to act, to paraphrase the PHB) instead of now, and that's it. If you're on the surprise round and you're delaying, you're merely waiting to see what others are going to do before acting, except that you get to pretty much choose after whom you're acting in a regular round, regardless of the initiative you would've otherwise had if you didn't get to act in the surprise round.
wrecan 07-16-07, 12:57 PM	An elegant solution to a thorny problem!
Elessar 07-20-07, 06:05 AM	Well, Lootus, if I'm understanding your interpretation correctly, I think that while it comes up with a good solution, it isn't an ironclad solution in regards to RAW (although you seem to acknowledge this). It seems that the lynch-pin to your argument is the term "order of battle," from which you've extrapolated a sub-system of rules that disallows you from taking a delayed action without relative actions from other combatants to provide a frame of reference for that. Now, non-mechanically, I can see where this is coming from and its basis in reality. In reality, you can't wait for someone to do something and be guaranteed to act right after them but before someone else, because you have no idea when any of this is going to occur. But this doesn't really respond to the RAW, which I'm going to play devil's advocate and defend. If you'll forgive me for being curt, I think you've decided that "the order of battle" is "The Order of Battle." That is, you're deriving a rather important concrete game term from four words found in a corollary to a rule about delaying. To me, I just read these words as inconsequential, and tantamount to saying "the order in which initiative occurs based on initiative count." It seems to me it was just worded to avoid redundancy, but now I guess we're getting into my interpretation. OK, now I'm going to shut up about the RAW, because you admittedly were making your own interpretations and I don't really like the RAW anyways. The concept that "the “new initiative result” you specify has to be based on reference to the initiative results of participants who have already taken an action," however, is basically penalizing someone for delaying if they win initiative. If we set aside this whole surprise round business and the threat of allowing full round sneak attacks from rogues, we're looking at penalizing someone for choosing to wait a few moments to act. Even if you're worried about metagaming and the initiative count is the DM's secret, this doesn't really make sense to me. In combat, you don't need to wait for someone to do something. You can just wait. This is, I think, why the rules for delay say that you can choose to specify a new initiative result. You can simply wait a few moments (the actual number of moments is up to you) to do something. These moments translate into counts of initiative. So assuming initiative is a secret, you can still delay your action until initiative count 6. You didn't know whether someone else's action would come up before 6 or not, you just chose to act on 6. By that logic, and given the infinite cycle that is initiative, you can choose initiative count 1000 on the next round, and act then. You don't "know" whether someone will act before "1000," but you can guess they won't. I suppose the problem with this is if two people delay until the next round, they're basically playing a game of "who can name a bigger number," but I don't really see that problem as coming up all that often when compared to the problem of not being able to act simply because nobody else has provided a frame of reference for your delayed action. I think the simplest solution is probably the best. Although it's not explicitly stated, I'd rule that while you don't have to specify the exact action that you are delaying when you delay an action, that the type of action you were delaying should remain the same. Yes, this is completely ignoring the whole "replenishing actions" debate and steering way clear of the "haste/slow" fiasco (this is hardly the only situation in which those spells cause confusion), because it's just simpler that way, and it fixes the problem at hand. Since the Rules As Written are hardly ironclad, I don't know why the solution to this problem need be. Oh and take everything I just wrote for what it's worth: two cents.
Leilond 07-20-07, 06:17 AM	I really cannot understand how can be that "waiting some moment" will make you do "more actions"!! This is completely against the rules, as written and as intended Think of this A surprise B A roll for intiative and obtain "1". Now we have two possible situation A do not "delay" A standard action B full action A full action B full action ... A delay to be the first of the regular round A full action B full action A full action B full action ... Thus, you delay to obtain MORE actions. Sorry, that approach cannot be justified, thus I think you completely misunderstand the rules If you delay you can delay before anyone have the opportunity to act (surprise round) or after someone have the opportunity to act (regular round). If somone have the opportunity to act you cannot interrupt him, thus you cannot act before him in the regular round. Thus, the final rule have to be, for consistence with all the rules and stay without rule contraddiction 1) Delay in the surprise round 2) Delay after someone acted in the regular round
Elessar 07-20-07, 06:57 AM	I really cannot understand how can be that "waiting some moment" will make you do "more actions"!! This is completely against the rules, as written and as intended Well, "intent" is a slippery slope indeed. I could argue by the way the rules are written that fighters are intended to be out-shined past level 12, but let's (please) not go there. Think of this A surprise B A roll for intiative and obtain "1". Now we have two possible situation A do not "delay" A standard action B full action A full action B full action ... A delay to be the first of the regular round A full action B full action A full action B full action ... Thus, you delay to obtain MORE actions. Sorry, that approach cannot be justified, thus I think you completely misunderstand the rules If you delay you can delay before anyone have the opportunity to act (surprise round) or after someone have the opportunity to act (regular round). If somone have the opportunity to act you cannot interrupt him, thus you cannot act before him in the regular round. Thus, the final rule have to be, for consistence with all the rules and stay without rule contraddiction 1) Delay in the surprise round 2) Delay after someone acted in the regular round I think, if you're addressing me, that you misunderstand me. In the end of my post, I advocated specifically against the combatant, A, from your above situation, being able to delay his standard action from the surprise round to take a full action right before combatant B. I'd rule that while you don't have to specify the exact action that you are delaying when you delay an action, that the type of action you were delaying should remain the same. See? Now mind you I acknowledge that the rules are pretty vague and open to multiple readings and that I'm pretty sleepy at the time of writing this, but I think this covers things up without straying too far from the rules. Based on the precedent of the repeated phrase "delayed action" that others have pointed out comes up quite often in the text, I'm just making the inductive leap that some property of the action you could've taken is carried over when you delay an action, and I'm ruling for balance reasons that the action's type is what stays the same. While this is certainly an interpretation (just like everything everyone is saying in this thread is), I wouldn't call it contradictory to anything unless you're referring to the weird scenarios like the whole haste/slow thing (which again I wash my hands of.) Also, I can't see why a player can't use the delay action to just wait a couple of moments during battle. Rules-wise, balance-wise, or in reference to reality. If someone can explain to me why this is wrong-headed, please educate me. I understand that initiative is an abstract system and doesn't translate directly into "seconds" or "minutes", but I fail to see where in the rules it says that the player (out of game, not the character) can't delay until a specific number of initiative. In fact, the rules for delay seem to suggest the contrary to me. By the same token I can't see why a character (in game) must wait for "benchmark" actions to play out before acting, and can't just take an arbitrary pause to see if anything happens.
Leilond 07-20-07, 07:06 AM	Sure more than one reading of the rule can be made But if a way of reading the rule will make a character do more action simply "delaying" it's surely wrong. Thus, the fact that a rule is a bit "ambiguous" do not make "every possible interpretation right". There still are some interpretation that leads to inconsistences and contraddiction with the rest of the rules mechanics, thus that interpretation IS WRONG
Marcus Majarra 07-20-07, 09:56 AM	Also, I can't see why a player can't use the delay action to just wait a couple of moments during battle. Rules-wise, balance-wise, or in reference to reality. If someone can explain to me why this is wrong-headed, please educate me. I understand that initiative is an abstract system and doesn't translate directly into "seconds" or "minutes", but I fail to see where in the rules it says that the player (out of game, not the character) can't delay until a specific number of initiative. In fact, the rules for delay seem to suggest the contrary to me. By the same token I can't see why a character (in game) must wait for "benchmark" actions to play out before acting, and can't just take an arbitrary pause to see if anything happens. You're quite right in stating this. In fact, the rules explicitly indicate that you can choose on which initiative count you can act. What you need to keep in mind, however, is that initiative is not a measure of time, which is why you cannot translate it into seconds. Initiative is an indicator of the activation sequence of creatures in combat. As such, selecting a specific initiative count on which to act is of no use unless you have some knowledge of the initiative counts of other participants. And if you do have it, you're essentially choosing to act after another creature, and before another. I think this is the reasoning behind Lootus extensive explanations, and it's quite coherent.
meabolex 07-20-07, 01:06 PM	I believe that it wasn't the intent of the designers to allow delay to set initiatives before the first round of regular combat. The easiest fix is to simply disallow delays in the surprise rounds. Skip's fix (RotG All About Initiative 2) is slightly more complicated, but I like how it rewards you for having a high initiative directly (with no luck factored in). I honestly don't think it'll make that big of a difference in the game if you play with delay actions in the surprise round. The main thing you'll have to ask yourself is: why *wouldn't* you delay? It seems like in a lot of situations, it would just be better going first in the normal combat rounds than having a surprise round + a chance that everyone else will go before you with full combat rounds. I'm not saying that delaying in a surprise round is always a good idea, but it is a very (possibly too) good idea.
Elessar 07-20-07, 04:41 PM	Sure more than one reading of the rule can be made But if a way of reading the rule will make a character do more action simply "delaying" it's surely wrong. OK, but, like I've said twice before, that's not what I've advocated. In my example, you can't get get any more actions by delaying. Under my suggestion, if you wait until the beginning of the non-surprise round, you start off with a standard action, not a full round action as you have indicated. So the delaying character has not mysteriously gained more actions, only waited until their actions could be used in a more opportune manner. One possible situation in which this might be a useful strategy is if the party surprises a group of monsters, and the first person with initiative in the surprise round wants to wait until his allies have had some time to move into place and cover all escape routes and gain flanking positions before moving in. Therefore, he waits until the beginning of the first normal round, when he knows they will all have gone. He does not gain a full round action. I'm going to repeat that again since you seem to think that's what I'm advocating. He does NOT gain a full round action. As such, selecting a specific initiative count on which to act is of no use unless you have some knowledge of the initiative counts of other participants. I agree, but I think it's OK to allow a bit of a gamble and guesswork on the part of the PCs if they want to take it. It works in other areas of combat. For instance if an archer is trying to stay out of melee range of a monster, just because the character doesn't know the monster's precise movement speed doesn't mean the player can't count squares and try to stay out of range based on a hunch or an estimation.
Jackmojo 07-21-07, 01:34 PM	Sure more than one reading of the rule can be made But if a way of reading the rule will make a character do more action simply "delaying" it's surely wrong. Thus, the fact that a rule is a bit "ambiguous" do not make "every possible interpretation right". There still are some interpretation that leads to inconsistences and contraddiction with the rest of the rules mechanics, thus that interpretation IS WRONG I don't disagree with your sentiment that characters gaining acitons is incorrect, but I point you at the explanation of why it doesn't apply here: No one is obtaining any extra actions, in every case they are losing an action, thats the other reason I added the round breaks it helps illustrate the lost action better. Lets imagine that combat will only last 5 rounds do to some external condition. If the surpriser skips their surprise round for an initiative advantage they have lost that action (functionally they used it to increase their initiative for whatever reason by delaying to the next round), then they will only get 4 full rounds worth of actual actions, whereas if they had acted they would get four full rounds + the one standard or move action of the surprise round. Quite clearly they are not gaining any actions since they end up with less of them! Jack
Lootus 07-21-07, 10:52 PM	Elessar, I don't think my interpretation is the best solution by any means, it's just the only way I could think of to read the rules that could possibly end up with the result being that someone could not delay from surprise into a full-round action at the beginning of the 1st regular round of combat. This is not a very practicable solution, because it would open up an equal amount of new problems. I should have made that more clear, and I apologize. So that being said, I I feel it's much more in line with the intent of initiative rules to just say you can't do it and leave it at that (or choose any one of the other simple solutions people have suggested for that matter). Ultimately, the rules are just (slightly) too ambiguous on this matter, and the discrepencies on surprise rounds as presented in the DMG examples just compound the annoyance. Sorry if I prolonged this more than needed...as far as my original question is concerned I'm considering the issue to be closed. In conclusion, as I was trying to illustrate in my post at the bottom of pg 2 (where I was trying to be funny, but probably failed horribly), I find the evolution for the rules for surprise rounds to be highly suspicious, and I think Delay unintentionally ended up being the chink in the armor of the initiative rules. However, feel free to Delay and then continue to beat my dead horse with a full attack. :D Thanks, Lootus
Nom 07-22-07, 10:33 AM	Jack, your argument is incorrect. You are assuming the point at which you count actions is the "end" of the round when initiative cycles. Rather, you should be accumulating each party's actions and comparing them as each takes an action. As a somewhat contrived example, let's consider a one-on-one encounter between a PC and a bad guy. Let's further assume that the first character to get 3 full round actions worth of activity wins. Finally, let's assume that the PC gets a surprise round but rolls poorly on his init roll. Without delay: * Suprise PC: standard action * Round "1" Bad Guy: full round action 1 PC: full round action 1 * Round "2" Bad Guy: full round action 2 PC: full round action 2 * Round "3" Bad Guy: full round action 3 - wins Now, if we allow PC to delay to the start of the first round and then take a full round action: * Suprise PC: delay * Round "1" PC: full round action 1 Bad Guy: full round action 1 * Round "2" PC: full round action 2 Bad Guy: full round action 2 * Round "3" PC: full round action 3 - wins I realise there's lots of simplifications here, but the core point stands. Delaying into the regular round allows the PC to convert a standard action into a full round action. That it crosses the point where init goes from "low" to "high" is of no material consequence: that you would act again before the initiative count hits zero doesn't mean diddly squat if you've just lost.
jaspercrey 07-22-07, 12:53 PM	Okay, I'll admit that I haven't read every last post so someone may have already pointed this out but: Both Delay and Ready are catagorized as Special Initiative Actions. A Special Inititiative allows you to change when you act during combat by altering your place in the initiative order. Ready and Dely cannot be found under the heading "Standard Actions" because they aren't "Standard Actions". Again, Ready and Dealy are Special Initiative Actions, a catagory unto itself. And since all you can do in a Surprize round is a Standard Action or a Free Action, you can't Ready or Delay during a Surprize Round.
Elessar 07-22-07, 01:56 PM	Both Delay and Ready are catagorized as Special Initiative Actions. They may be categorized in the SRD as Special Initiative actions, but in their rules, at least Ready counts as a standard action. The ready action lets you prepare to take an action later, after your turn is over but before your next one has begun. Readying is a standard action. It does not provoke an attack of opportunity (though the action that you ready might do so). Delay seems to be not an action, per se, but something you do to an action. P.S. Lootus - Actually, I think your joke on pg. 2 was one of the most insightful things said on the topic. I think the real problem here is that the designers are human and couldn't have possibly considered all the discrepancies that would arise from such a complicated rule system.
Jackmojo 07-23-07, 03:10 PM	Jack, your argument is incorrect. You are assuming the point at which you count actions is the "end" of the round when initiative cycles. Rather, you should be accumulating each party's actions and comparing them as each takes an action. As a somewhat contrived example, let's consider a one-on-one encounter between a PC and a bad guy. Let's further assume that the first character to get 3 full round actions worth of activity wins. Finally, let's assume that the PC gets a surprise round but rolls poorly on his init roll. Fair enough, although I would argue that the players are far more likely to be aware of some external threat ending the combat (i.e. guards coming, walls closing in, etc...) then that they would be aware that all the enemy or themselves need is 3 full round actions to win. :) You could certainly also argue that getting a certain number of standard actions would be better, so it would end sooner if he just went acted in the surprise round and hoped to have better intiative. I realise there's lots of simplifications here, but the core point stands. Delaying into the regular round allows the PC to convert a standard action into a full round action. That it crosses the point where init goes from "low" to "high" is of no material consequence: that you would act again before the initiative count hits zero doesn't mean diddly squat if you've just lost. Its clearly key to keep the PC's in the dark as to how long the combat is going to take before it even starts then :) Jack
Leilond 07-24-07, 03:39 AM	Fair enough, although I would argue that the players are far more likely to be aware of some external threat ending the combat (i.e. guards coming, walls closing in, etc...) then that they would be aware that all the enemy or themselves need is 3 full round actions to win. :) You could certainly also argue that getting a certain number of standard actions would be better, so it would end sooner if he just went acted in the surprise round and hoped to have better intiative. The problem is that you roll the initiative in the SURPRISE ROUND, while the surprised enemy roll during the standard round. Thus, if you roll "1" you know you're going to probably act after your enemy during the regular round and, if you let "delay to be the first in the regular round" you're simply allowing to convert a standard action in full round action using "delay". That's not only pure metagaming because the character do not know nothing about the existence of "initiative" (delaying to act after something happens is "in-game", while delaying to trasform a standard action in a full round action is metagaming) . It is also clearly against the "delay" rule as intended, because you're not "forgivinig" nothing to gain more
Jackmojo 07-24-07, 02:05 PM	The problem is that you roll the initiative in the SURPRISE ROUND, while the surprised enemy roll during the standard round. Thus, if you roll "1" you know you're going to probably act after your enemy during the regular round and, if you let "delay to be the first in the regular round" you're simply allowing to convert a standard action in full round action using "delay". That's not only pure metagaming because the character do not know nothing about the existence of "initiative" (delaying to act after something happens is "in-game", while delaying to trasform a standard action in a full round action is metagaming) . It is also clearly against the "delay" rule as intended, because you're not "forgivinig" nothing to gain more Certainly, if your players would be inclined to abuse it as such, your solution of requireing a reroll of intiative at the top of the first normal round is far and away the best solution. Personally I had no problem with the way refocusing worked (although my memories of the explicit mechanics are fuzzy) so I may find letting a character forego their surprise round to act sooner in the regular action less abusive then you (of course if the surprise round was just a normal first round of combat then we wouldn't have this prooblem, stupid half round thingy). Jack
Leilond 07-25-07, 05:57 AM	Certainly, if your players would be inclined to abuse it as such, your solution of requireing a reroll of intiative at the top of the first normal round is far and away the best solution. It is enought to forbit to act "first in the regular round", because there is no in-game reason to allow it... You can act as "last in the surprise round", not "first in the regular round" Personally I had no problem with the way refocusing worked (although my memories of the explicit mechanics are fuzzy) so I may find letting a character forego their surprise round to act sooner in the regular action less abusive then you (of course if the surprise round was just a normal first round of combat then we wouldn't have this prooblem, stupid half round thingy). Jack It's not stupid. If you allow "full round action" during the surprise round, you open your game to deadly suprise rounds. It is a matter to make surprise round not too much powerfull
Jackmojo 07-25-07, 11:57 AM	It's not stupid. If you allow "full round action" during the surprise round, you open your game to deadly suprise rounds. It is a matter to make surprise round not too much powerfull Well in my experience surprise in this game is already massively deadly, because of spell casters of course, and since most spells are only standard actions to cast, allowing the wizards to move about would not massively increase its danger, but it might allow the poor non-spell casters in the party to contribute equally (since BAB based attacks lose so much more by geing denied their full round action then spell based attacks do). Jack