I have come across this issue too many times, and even had issue convincing GM's due to a lot of the other players disagreeing with me, and with what's written in the CRB on this matter. I would like help in quickly persuading others of this rule, so I can try and stop it from being an issue, and not taking up too much time in game.
GM's most often in my games batch all the creatures in the combat on the same initiative order, and I use delay to get in between (not being a jerk). Others argue that all the creatures literally go at the same time, and even if they didn't, it is impossible for me to go on the same initiative order as the creatures to go between them with delay.
I need help convincing others that I can indeed use delay to go in between creatures initiative, by going directly AFTER a creature that has just gone.
Example: Goblin A, B, and C are all on initiative 12. A and B go, and immediately after B, I go off delay. I would be at an initiative order of 12.3, to a's 12.1, B's 12.2, and C's now 12.4 if we were to call it.
Firstly, this is correct, right?
Second, using the rules published within the CRB, what can I point out specifically to help convey the rules to be understood correctly to allow delay to function properly?
Third, any suggestions for anything else to add in?
You are correct and you can ready an action to go based on a specified trigger.
Technically everyone goes at the same time, but because we cant do that in real life we have turned based systems.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat#TOC-Ready
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
OP is correct in his understanding of when he can come out of delay. It can be done between the end of one combatant's turn ends and the next starts. The support for doing so in the midst of batches opponents is found at the beginning of the combat section in the description of how initiative works. Each combatant rolls initiative and they act in turn.
Grouping combatants on the NPC side is common practice. It is a matter of convenience and has a long history. The problem is when GMs fail to recognize that their use of this procedure doesn't make the individuals in an initiative group a monolithic and indivisible whole. Alternatively, they can't be bothered to break up the group, for the same reason as they grouped them in the first place: convenience.
for the sake of simplicity most DMs do groups of monsters (such as goblin archers on initiative 16 and goblin warriors on 12) for initiatives
the way we run it, is if your waiting for a specific action or creature to occur/do something, then you can react to it by getting your actions after the condition is met, and then in subsequent rounds you go directly after the set of creatures does
say you want to wait for the goblin warriors to charge so their ac is lower, then you can wait until they and then move in to attack after they have completed their charges.
this is allows players to wait and reacting to the changing combat and opportunities around them, without letting them interrupt the middle of an enemies turn, which really doesn't make a whole lot of sense
if goblin 1,2, and 3 are a team, they are going to work simultaneously
just because your DM moves this mini, then this min, then this mini doesn't mean they're each taking separate turns
its like a horse and its rider
can someone take actions between the horse and riders initiatives, therefore letting the horse run away and having the rider sit in suspended animation above the group until its his turn?
it may not be the best way to explain it but...
and if there's rules that say the horse can have its turn, and then someone else can run up and mount the horse before the riders turn, then s be it
just seems a bit MEH for me
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mounts have their own rule to accomodate for them, in the mounted combat section:
"Your mount acts on your initiative count as you direct it. You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move."
And your example is a strawman regardless: the goblins aren't mounted or acting in any unified way moreso than a group of organised adventurers, who must all roll separate initiative.
The DM is creating a houserule when he groups monsters together on initiative. That's fine, but he (and you) should not then assume this is RAW.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is the relevant rule (emphasis mine):
Initiative
At the start of a battle, each combatant makes an initiative check. An initiative check is a Dexterity check. Each character applies his or her Dexterity modifier to the roll, as well as other modifiers from feats, spells, and other effects. Characters act in order, counting down from the highest result to the lowest. In every round that follows, the characters act in the same order (unless a character takes an action that results in his or her initiative changing; see Special Initiative Actions).If two or more combatants have the same initiative check result, the combatants who are tied act in order of total initiative modifier (highest first). If there is still a tie, the tied characters should roll to determine which one of them goes before the other.
Just because a GM chooses to lump creatures of the same build together on the same initiative count doesn't change the fact that "each combatant makes an initiative check" and "characters act in order" and "tied characters should roll to determine which one of them goes before the other".
That's it, as a GM I roll once for all similar mooks. If there is a tie or someone holds as you do the 2 just roll a d20 and add dex mod to it. Highest goes first (I suppose if you have held an acttion that deserves a +2 modifer as well). Simple.
|
Never heard of a GM doing this.... each combatant gets its own initiative. What happens when they have different initiative modifiers? They still use the same initiative anyway? How odd.
I would say this: It is OK for a GM to say "all these monsters (or players) are ranked here, so I will just do all their stuff together (say if all of them rolled real low)." But to do it every time, in every combat just out of laziness / "speed" and then claim "nope, you can't use the rules of delayed action to do something you want to do." Well, where is the fun in that? And how do you EVER counterspell?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a general rule, I will roll once for each combatant build.
So, if I have (say), a group of 6 hobgoblin footsoldiers with +2 initiative and a group of 3 hobgoblin archers with +2 initiative and a hobgoblin cleric with +2 initiative, I will roll 3 times to figure each group's "slot" in the initiative order. If delay and ready actions become a factor, I will break things up. I am always careful to complete "footsoldier #1"'s action before moving on to "footsoldier #2". It gets a little complex if 1 readies to act in response to 6, but it's not too bad.
And I'll be honest, I don't think my players have ever delayed or readied to break up the groups of monsters.
Confine your argument to your ability to interrupt the lynch mob. You might get that. Railing against the lynch mob isn't going to go anywhere: few people want to track 12 separate initiatives in a fight.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
as chemlak and bignorse say, if they have the same stats I group them and they go on the same round (3 bog standard goblins for instance), each piece gets moved sperattley on the map so any interupts can be fairly dealt with. Anything else gets its own initative including the PC's. This done as we dont want to keep track of large amounts of iniative,we as a group find individual rolls for everyone gets boring, drags out combat and is clunky. If player wants to delay its easy to deal with as they just act when that mook acts and moves. To say you cant use delay though is just stupid and the GM is wong to do that. I can see the use of individual scores though but we have just never used them.
We have 4 in our group all of us veterens of 1st ed d&d onwards and all of us use this method (we round robin and everyone dm's whether its 1st ed, pf, 3.5 or another sysytem). It just works for us, its never been questioned at the table.
To anyone who has never heard of a GM doing this... this is an old throwback rule from the 3.5 PHB, page 136-137.
"Monster Initiative: Typically, the DM makes a single initiative check for monsters and other opponents. That way, each player gets a turn each round and the DM also gets one turn. At the DM's option, however, he can make separate initiative checks for different groups of monsters or even for individual creatures."
I usually DM with the middle option. Like Chemlak, I break opponents into groups depending on their build. Also like Chemlak, I realize that delay/ready orders can create situations where this order needs to get broken up to the accommodation of the players.
Same boat as Chemlak. I've never had my players want to go in the middle of the initiative of a group of mooks. I'm also sure my players don't want to wait for me to roll separate initiatives for each of my 5 goblin skirmisher mooks, 4 goblin archer mooks, and their boss. I'm also sure they don't want to watch me mark all my mooks, switch back and forth between which mook type is up on Hero Labs or on paper every other of my initiatives, and survey the field to determine exactly which mook is up.
This system has advantages and disadvantages. It's definitively faster as illustrated. It can make combat more swingy when groups roll well or poorly. For readied actions my players new initiative becomes the initiative right before the group of mooks that set off the action which works a little bit in their favor. I've done this for over a decades as probably have the vast majority of DM's/GM's and never had a single player complain.
|
Oh, is it that time already? :)
I must say, I did manage to do individual initiatives at my table yesterday, but it was mostly thanks to there only being one or two enemies per combat.
just because your DM moves this mini, then this min, then this mini doesn't mean they're each taking separate turns
Yes, it does. Each creature gets its own turn.
If he moves three minis, then has them all attack, the first two were delaying until the third got into position.
If I do mass initiative, I make sure everybody knows that's what's going on.
|
|
Hmm the hardest thing I was trying to explain to a PC was, why a Lawful Good Paladin (of Iomadae) couldnt sell a ally and friend of the party NPC or PC into slavery for an advantage.
Their counter argument was that they had one level of inquisitor, but when I brought up that they had 8 levels of paladin, their reply was that they were an inquisitor.. and that I was trying to give him multiple personalities....
You mean readying, right?
No, delaying.
Say the 3 goblins want to surround someone, and attack en masse.
"Goblin 1 moves, then delays."
"Goblin 2 moves, then delays."
"Goblin 3 moves, then attacks."
"Goblin 2 stops delaying and attacks."
"Goblin 1 stops delaying and attacks."
|
|
Also, when they were going to infiltrate an enemy compound/ city to do sabatoge and what not.
They tried to come up with a work around...
instead of having to worry about a lengthy mission of infilatration, they had remembered that they had met some Tanuki merchants, and they read their description in the monsterous manual that they often make magical items.... so they wanted to make magical gun powder so they could just dig under ground and blow the compound up from underneath with the super magical gunpowder they wanted the tanuki to build.
When I told them the Tanuki couldnt make magical gun powder they cited reading the fluff description and that I was shutting down their work around for the campaign....
Needless to say I am getting tired of this....
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You mean readying, right?No, delaying.
Say the 3 goblins want to surround someone, and attack en masse.
"Goblin 1 moves, then delays."
"Goblin 2 moves, then delays."
"Goblin 3 moves, then attacks."
"Goblin 2 stops delaying and attacks."
"Goblin 1 stops delaying and attacks."
Yeah, you mean ready. You can't move and delay.
No, I mean delay, because they aren't spending a standard action for a trigger event. They're just holding their action.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Delay holds the character's entire turn. You can't move and then delay, because you've already taken part of your turn (by moving). It is trivial to achieve the result with readied actions, though.
To help Human Fighter with his problem, please allow me to ask some questions and extrapolate some information based on your statements.
alright; first point: if we're going to be 100% rules lawyers in this matter,
and with what's written in the CRB on this matter.
is out the window, based on the fact that how your GM is handling initiative is not based on what is written in the CRB and is, in fact, an old legacy rule, and this is something your GM is houseruling.
I hate to say it, but since you've entered the realm of houserules, the GM (being the arbiter and adjudicator) can pretty much set the rule as he wishes at this point.
However, as your defense attorney, we need to ask your GM some questions about how he would adjudicate similar instances.
Others argue that all the creatures literally go at the same time, and even if they didn't, it is impossible for me to go on the same initiative order as the creatures to go between them with delay.
Why do the creatures literally all go at the same time? Is it because they are nameless NPCs which are effectively clones of each other? That doesn't mean they are the same individual. The initiative list should look like this:
Mersiel 15
Harsk 12
Goblin 9
Goblin 9
Goblin 9
Kyra 5
not like this:
Mersiel 15
Harsk 12
Goblin(3) 9
Kyra 5
Do PCs with the same initiative score all go at the same time? Would it be possible for the GM to delay the initiative of a monster in between two such PCs? If so, then your PC should be able to do the same.
You mean readying, right?No, delaying.
Say the 3 goblins want to surround someone, and attack en masse.
"Goblin 1 moves, then delays."
"Goblin 2 moves, then delays."
"Goblin 3 moves, then attacks."
"Goblin 2 stops delaying and attacks."
"Goblin 1 stops delaying and attacks."
No that is readying. Delay means you take no actions.
To anyone who has never heard of a GM doing this... this is an old throwback rule from the 3.5 PHB, page 136-137.
"Monster Initiative: Typically, the DM makes a single initiative check for monsters and other opponents. That way, each player gets a turn each round and the DM also gets one turn. At the DM's option, however, he can make separate initiative checks for different groups of monsters or even for individual creatures."
I did this in my ADnD days, it's been around for a while.
@Human Fighter
While you are by rules correct about every enemy deserving their own initiative, (as a GM) it is an extremely tedious and sometimes difficult thing track 6 enemies separately in a fight. I myself often find myself forgetting which creatures have acted and what abilities have been used, while trying to track the hp of multiple creatures, remembering multiple feats, abilties, tracking spells, reminding players of abilities and adjudicating rules
The biggest plus side of lumping mobs together is speeding up the game significantly. The slight delay between switching focus is enough to add up to lots of wasted time over a session. When your one turn comes by once every 6 turns, balloons to once every 12 turns ~ more time is spent waiting.
You could think of it like the lines at the checkouts: Does a line with 6 customers holding 1 item move faster than a single person with 6 items?
(Personally I always go for the least people in line because the time processing payments is always so much shorter).
Personal experience has further taught me, that players are never ready when their turns come around.
You could potentially argue and get split initiatives but are you willing to lose 30 minutes or an hour from every session for that benefit?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would never roll 6 different initiatives for 6 monsters, but players can delay and interrupt whenever they want, that's the whole point of delay.
I feel as though this thread was started to cause a lengthy rules debate.
But to answer the original question, yes as others have pointed out, you can do what you are trying to do. But what I am wondering is: why do you want to? What is the significant gain to be had by taking your 'turn' in the middle of the turns of a group of enemies?
As a GM, I generally lump all the NPCs together in initiative to keep things moving more smoothly.
I feel as though this thread was started to cause a lengthy rules debate.
Blope, nope.
Alright, so to everyone, I would like to inform you that I was doing a sort of con over the weekend, so it was wake up, pf, sleep, wake up pf, return home right now late at night. I just read responses, and gladly I didn't need to argue with anyone on this topic my two games today.
For the record, this is an issue I'm having at PFS. I understand and respect a GMs choice to house rules a matter, but I admit, house rules arguments are different from ACTUAL RULES.
This is a matter of delay, and I am asking for advice to help expatiate the process when I have conflicts in PFS to get the correct rules enforced. It shouldn't matter about specifics of why I want to do this, because regardless, it's a thing I can do. Yes, I have posted many times about my gripes about very awful experiences related to this because of how this mechanic has just devolved out of bad habit moving further and further from actual rules. Arguing about rolling for initiative isn't my intention for this thread, and I may or may not in the future try and initiate another thread on the matter, because it seems to be a lost cause.
So, people want to know some hypotheticals, or actual instances of why I want to delay into a clumped initiative. I try my hardest to be honest to the game with rules, and especially on a role playing level. When a GM says, "roll initiative", I don't immediately assume I must start attacking. I am known in my area as the guy who wishes to have some words/reason(s) before just going kill crazy without being provoked. Many players get upset with me for this, and insult me by saying that it was obvious that initiative was rolled because the guy was going to take a cheap shot. Moving forward... I typically use delay, and enjoy my free actions to speak until something reasonable happens, and oddly enough, I am put into these situations where a stampede of enemies come in to just go LITERALLY at the same time and slaughter one of our allies, or even ME! So, I am faced with either rushing forward to help tank some of the blows from my ally to prevent instant death, or after the first person attempts to attack me, (then becoming aware or have a hunch the 5 others will follow) I would enjoy taking my double move to run away, or even start attacking the others to possibly get a kill to lessen the impending attacks.
These situations happen plenty of times to myself, and it is pretty upsetting. I have personal friends, and people I've met in PFS that get extremely angry over this, but sadly don't speak up at the tables, which makes me look very alone on this matter.
The best advice I believe I got was about having the GM prove it to me that they are correct. Sadly, THIS is what blocks me the most,
"You also can't interrupt anyone else's action (as you can with a readied action)."
due to the misunderstanding that they believe their clumped NPC's literally go on the same turn, effectively making delay interrupting the NPc's turn and illegal.
I don't think really you have any way of resolving the issue to be honest.
If it is a PFS game and the rule is wrong then I think there are ways of mentioning this to someone higher? (I dont know as I have never played one).
If on the other hand its the GM's table rule (is ours and a lot of others by the sound of it) then I would guess you are flat out of luck unless you get the GM to change his ruling. My thinking is that he is getting confused and using the 3.5 rule as others have said.
The ONLY comprimise you will ever get is to either leave the group if yo are not happy with it, ask the GM to change (show him the rules and say that in PF this has now changed) or get the GM to move the mini's one at a time then you can do what you need to do when the oppertunity arises (this is the only way I can see it would work all round)
There is as far as I can see nothing else you can do apart from quote the rules in the book to the table until you are blue in the face (which will more than likely end in an argument). I don't recommend this option.
The only advice I can say is that clumping groups together and moving the minis 1 at a time does not cause any problems on our table and everyone can act as they normally would, delay and interupt actions work as they are intended as far as I can see (move goblin 1 to attack, move goblin 2 and the mage casts a his held spell as it moves no problem, goblin 3 moves etc). We have never tried the single iniatitve so I have no idea if this works better or not.
If the GM says you cant interupt or delay as they are all moving as a group then he is wrong and that is a whole other issue and as far as I can see he is a crap gm for doing this and you are better off walking away.
So to make it clear (as far as our group would go). Any action you could do to interupt or delay you can do if the GM clumps mooks together so long as they are moved 1 at a time.
This is a matter of delay, and I am asking for advice to help expatiate the process when I have conflicts in PFS to get the correct rules enforced. It shouldn't matter about specifics of why I want to do this, because regardless, it's a thing I can do
Can isn't always should.
-The way the rules are- is a myth. There is no one universal way to run the game. There is far too much ambiguity in the rules set for it to be otherwise. If you want a game run exactly how you want it, you have to be on the other side of the screen.
My apologies to the OP.
If this is the style of the GM, then you may need to consider adjusting to it. What about creating a character with a good reach weapon, combat reflexes, and try and lock down battles with AoO? You wouldn't have to interrupt the GMs turn, but you would still get attacks on the enemies as they move in. All you need to do is position yourself on your turn.
PFS- Isn't there an official source on rulings for PFS games? I was under the impression they tried to keep all the PFS games as close as possible in terms of how they are run.
Blope, having a reach weapon to block off enemies was exactly what happened my first time this happened.
Blope, as well, you're right on the money with how PFS is designed to be an environment where you should expect the rules to be RAW as best as possible, and if you're made aware of a correct ruling as a GM, you're obligated to enforce it. People who post that others should go to a home game if they want the correct rules to be enforced are wasting space on the forums are are just being rude. There is definitely RAI, and RAW, but being able to use delay to act at a certain time is completely legal, and no one needs to have to explain themselves if they want to do so (regardless, I personally am not doing it to be a jerk).
This advice forum is about getting help in quickly convincing a GM of the correct rules in regards to using delay, and yes, I have stopped going to certain tables which I feel GM's are lost causes etc. If anyone else has advice in quickly convincing others of correct rules on this matter (especially with how I last pointed out a counter argument I typically get), I would appreciate it. In PFS a player should be allowed to make a quick argument in regards to a rule conflict, and a GM makes a quick decision then moves on.
Point out the rule and say no where does it say that groups of NPC move as one abut they all have individual initative rolls. Point out the delay and interupt actions in the rules and mention that it negats any delay or interupt action so they are null and void making your tactics useless. If he wont budge Ask him for a compimise where he moves one mini at a time then you can interupt or delay as normal and how you feel you should. May be do a demo using a few minis to get your point of view across if you think you can, showing both his rule and the offical view.
One rule of advice, ask the other players first what they think as they may be OK with the rule and you don't want to indvertadly atangonise everyone. Then speak to the GM before the game or after not during the game otherwise it becomes an argument and spoils the game for everyone. Dont get angry just be rational (it helps not to argue during the game) and put your point of view across in the best way you can.
If he won't change then no amount of aruging or rule pointing will change him. If he wants to keep the rule that is up to him. A good GM should be able to change or comprimise to accomodate if things don't work. In his defnce he may have used his rule for years and may be unaware of the issues it causes, you may jsut need to convice him, which as have seen is a VERY hard job sometimes.
I think the main thrux or point you need to get across is that
EACH NPC, MONSTER, PC ETC MAKES A SINGLE INITATIVE ROLL, NO WHERE IN THE RULES DO YOU CLUMP GROUPS OF NPC'S OR MONSTERS TOGETHER WITH ONE ROLL, THEY ALL MOVE ON THEIR OWN INITATIVe NOT TOGETHER.
just point him to that rule as this is the one that causes all the confusion and annoyance. If you can get him to cahnce that rule than everythibg should be fine.
There may also be some confusion as to ready an action and holding an action, you may need to think about that too, the 2 are slighty confusing at times.
But I will say, give the GM a small break too, its a 500page rulebook, sometimes its hard to learn everything off by heart, sometimes things get lost in translation.
I tend to agree with Lazar, here.
It's a balance between convenience and the rules: if I'm running 10 creatures and the the 5 PCs are running one each (making 2/3 of the actions on the table mine to make), I do not want the hassle of holding 15 index cards in my hand when 8 will do (or writing down 15 separate scores with space between to accommodate all possible delay/ready combinations, or however you choose to manage initiative).
On the other hand, enforcing not allowing enemy initiatives to be broken up is at least as bad, since it effectively turns those 6 hobgoblin foot soldiers into a single creature capable of spreading around the battlefield and able to take many more actions than any single creature should be allowed.
DO NOT try to persuade GMs to stop grouping initiative. But likewise be aware of the rules and if you need to, be prepared to ask, politely, that "because each creature has its own initiative score, even if they're the same number, and they each take their turn one after the other, I should be able to delay/ready and slot myself in between two of them. It will only require one additional initiative entry for you, to put the second group after me, and greatly opens up my tactical options in a fair way that is in accordance with the rules".
In a home game, the GM can say no. In PFS they should not. But don't be "that guy". Let the GM make their ruling, run with it, and if you do not agree, report it appropriately afterwards.