|
| 11 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. |
Dear Pathfinder Design Team, some game conditions prevent you from taking any actions, such as dazed, stunned and held. But, when I have one of these conditions when my turn comes up in the initiative count, can I choose to do the actions that are defined as 'No Action' on the Actions In Combat tables: delay and 5-foot step?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The RAI is clear -NO.
|
| 24 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Decidedly biased way to pose the question.
- * -
The questions are:
1) What kind of activity are the "No Action" actions and what stop you from taking them?
2) Delay is a purely mental activity and can be taken when paralysed?
3) Hold person/monster say that you can't take any action. That include the "No Action" Delay? (the 5' step is a no brainer as you can't move)
and, as Malachi love his question
4) What "No Action" can be taken or cannot be taken while stunned or dazed?
Decidedly biased way to pose the question.
Biased? Why? Because it repeats relevant text from the book?
This is irrelevant as "no action" is not a type of action. It only says "no action" in the table for reference. There is no rules text to back up the notion that there is such a thing as a "no action". Are you going to suggest that you must spend a full-round action before you can throw an alchemist's fire just because the table has listed "Prepare to throw splash weapon" as a full-round action? The rules text doesn't back that up either.
Rules text > Tables
I'm FAQing Diego's post as the OP's is decidedly biased (if unintentionally so). Really, they are different questions, not the same one.
It's like asking "Are the Ford, Toyota, and Kia safe cars?" and expecting a simple yes or no answer when in reality, some of the aforementioned vehicles may be safe and others not. Heck, some might not even be cars!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As I showed in the other thread "no action" is not an action type.
There are only six action types, and the "no action", does not make the cut.
That is RAW. If Malachi was trying to be impartial this thread would not even exist. At the very least he would have mentioned the following quote, but I will do it for him.
Action Types
An action's type essentially tells you how long the action takes to perform (within the framework of the 6-second combat round) and how movement is treated. There are six types of actions: standard actions, move actions, full-round actions, swift actions, immediate actions, and free actions.
Like I said in the other thread "no action' in the table is referring to acts that are not actually actions.
That is rules 101.
I'm FAQing Diego's post as the OP's is decidedly biased (if unintentionally so). Really, they are different questions, not the same one.
It's like asking "Are the Ford, Toyota, and Kia safe cars?" and expecting a simple yes or no answer when in reality, some of the aforementioned vehicles may be safe and others not. Heck, some might not even be cars!
Yup; a better example would be those very small cars. (Unsluggish, uncar, anyone?) Those things apparently can withstand the weight of an SUV, but I can guarantee you the survival rate of that car in any accident is 0, due that it's so small and has literally no protection because of its size.
Being held only prevents physical actions, so in that case mental actions are allowed. Being stunned or dazed affects you both mentally and physically, and I'd rule in those cases you can't apply mental actions.
|
|
Because he bundle together different questions to get the reply he want. Moving wile stunned/dazed/held has nothing to do with the questions if delaying is a mental action and if it can be done while held.
You can't take any actions while held, even purely mental actions, except for attempting a new will save as a full round action.
|
|
@Malachi, the current title is nonsensical. It also shows the heavy bias that you believe 'no actions' are some form of actual action. Remove the bias please.
While the title is deliberately provocative to entice people to look, the actual first post is what will get the FAQ request and this contains the actual question. It is written in such a way that the PDT will know exactly what is being asked and therefore know which answer is required.
Further I think it should be broken down into two separate questions for the 5' step and the delay - while both are 'no action' they have very different behaviors and could easily be ruled differently.
But the very argument for being able to delay while held is entirely based on it's status as 'no action', despite being a special initiative action.
If 'no action' means it's not an action then it's equally true for both delay and 5-foot step.
While being paralysed stops a 5-foot step (because it also says you cannot move), you are not paralysed when dazed or stunned, so there is nothing preventing you from taking a 5-foot step beyond being unable to take any actions. If 'no action' refers only to action type (standard/move etc.) then there is nothing preventing a 5-foot step or a delay. But if 'can't take any actions' includes those activities you choose to do on your turn (even though they don't cost you an action type) then you can't take a 5-foot step OR delay.
All they will do is errata stunned and dazed to read like this. Now two words have been added to clear up any RAW loopholes.
Stunned: A stunned creature drops everything held, can't take actions, to include movement, takes a –2 penalty to AC, and loses its Dexterity bonus to AC (if any).
Dazed: The creature is unable to act normally. A dazed creature can take no actions,to include movement, but has no penalty to AC.
A dazed condition typically lasts 1 round.
@Malachi, the current title is nonsensical. It also shows the heavy bias that you believe 'no actions' are some form of actual action. Remove the bias please.While the title is deliberately provocative to entice people to look, the actual first post is what will get the FAQ request and this contains the actual question. It is written in such a way that the PDT will know exactly what is being asked and therefore know which answer is required.
Further I think it should be broken down into two separate questions for the 5' step and the delay - while both are 'no action' they have very different behaviors and could easily be ruled differently.But the very argument for being able to delay while held is entirely based on it's status as 'no action', despite being a special initiative action.
If 'no action' means it's not an action then it's equally true for both delay and 5-foot step.
While being paralysed stops a 5-foot step (because it also says you cannot move), you are not paralysed when dazed or stunned, so there is nothing preventing you from taking a 5-foot step beyond being unable to take any actions. If 'no action' refers only to action type (standard/move etc.) then there is nothing preventing a 5-foot step or a delay. But if 'can't take any actions' includes those activities you choose to do on your turn (even though they don't cost you an action type) then you can't take a 5-foot step OR delay.
Actually they won't try to make a catch all ruling. The game is too complicated for that, and they would only lock themselves into a corner if they try to invent a new condition later on. They will just clarify the "intent" of stunned and dazed once they read the thread, if they reply at all.
Your opening statement is too leading, and shows clear bias. I am also sure they are aware of the hold person thread. Now like I said I am sure the delaying was not thought of when hold person was made, and they might decide it is not fair, but at this moment it is rules legal to delay, even if it might not be fair to some people.
|
|
All they will do is errata stunned and dazed to read like this. Now two words have been added to clear up any RAW loopholes.
Stunned: A stunned creature drops everything held, can't take actions, to include movement, takes a –2 penalty to AC, and loses its Dexterity bonus to AC (if any).
Dazed: The creature is unable to act normally. A dazed creature can take no actions,to include movement, but has no penalty to AC.
A dazed condition typically lasts 1 round.
A better and more useful answer would be distinguishing between action type and any act you choose to do, and telling us which of these 'can't take any actions' refers to.
|
|
Your opening statement is too leading, and shows clear bias. I am also sure they are aware of the hold person thread. Now like I said I am sure the delaying was not thought of when hold person was made, and they might decide it is not fair, but at this moment it is rules legal to delay, even if it might not be fair to some people.
I'm confident that the Design Team will not be fooled by any 'leading' in my question.
A better and more useful answer would be distinguishing between action type and any act you choose to do, and telling us which of these 'can't take any actions' refers to.All they will do is errata stunned and dazed to read like this. Now two words have been added to clear up any RAW loopholes.
Stunned: A stunned creature drops everything held, can't take actions, to include movement, takes a –2 penalty to AC, and loses its Dexterity bonus to AC (if any).
Dazed: The creature is unable to act normally. A dazed creature can take no actions,to include movement, but has no penalty to AC.
A dazed condition typically lasts 1 round.
I think that will always vary by situation. I know that is not what you want to hear, but that is most likely what it will amount to.
Now if they don't want anyone to have choice with hold person and when the save is done, they can errata it to say "you must save...", or "you must make the save on the same initiative count as the original save.."
I think both of those would work if they were worded well.
Actually, the easiest errata here is to change hold person to read as follows:
The subject becomes paralyzed and freezes in place. It is aware and breathes normally but cannot take any actions, even speech. Each round on its turn, the subject must attempt a new saving throw to end the effect. This is a full-round action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity. A winged creature who is paralyzed cannot flap its wings and falls. A swimmer can't swim and may drown.
Hopefully, this would also include a brief blurb about the intent of the spell and what other conditions or situations should utilize this same basic ruling - dazed, stunned, etc.
This is, of course, assuming that they decide you should not be able to delay (or take a five foot step) while under the effects of hold person.
MechE someone can still try to get past that, if they don't specify which init count to make the save on.
I can see a thread now:
"I know I have to make the save for hold person on my turn, but can I delay so I can choose when to make it? It will still be my turn."
By RAW they may have a leg to stand on. By enforcing the original initiative they won't have a way out, even if there is some special ability that allows you to act before or after your initial initiative.
Does anyone else think that RAI for Hold Person is that is causes the paralyzed condition and nothing else? I feel like that is what is implied by the spell, not that you can't take mental action because that sounds silly. The paralyzed condition would agree with that sentiment too, so I guess the real question is "Does Hold Person do more than simply paralyze an opponent?".
Does anyone else think that RAI for Hold Person is that is causes the paralyzed condition and nothing else? I feel like that is what is implied by the spell, not that you can't take mental action because that sounds silly. The paralyzed condition would agree with that sentiment too, so I guess the real question is "Does Hold Person do more than simply paralyze an opponent?".
I originally thought not, but recent posts have given me cause to doubt.
|
|
Does anyone else think that RAI for Hold Person is that is causes the paralyzed condition and nothing else? I feel like that is what is implied by the spell, not that you can't take mental action because that sounds silly. The paralyzed condition would agree with that sentiment too, so I guess the real question is "Does Hold Person do more than simply paralyze an opponent?".
Yes. Not only because it says so, but also because:-
Hold Person
School: enchantment (compulsion) [mind-affecting]
It won't let you take mental actions because it affects your mind. You're not paralysed because your body won't work, you're paralysed because your mind is incapable of giving it conscious instructions, leaving it doing nothing except its autonomous functions.
I would take that as it prevents your brain from communicating with your body effectively, not that suddenly your mind doesn't work. Would you say that you're incapable of thinking, "Man it sucks to be paralyzed!". Thinking is a mental action.
Does anyone want to start a thread to get an FAQ on whether hold person does more than impose paralyze? I'm sorry I just haven't seen a truly convincing argument that it was the intention to disallow mental actions, even if the scope of those is very limited.
|
|
You can't take any actions while held, even purely mental actions, except for attempting a new will save as a full round action.Because he bundle together different questions to get the reply he want. Moving wile stunned/dazed/held has nothing to do with the questions if delaying is a mental action and if it can be done while held.
That is the third question in my post.
Does anyone else think that RAI for Hold Person is that is causes the paralyzed condition and nothing else? I feel like that is what is implied by the spell, not that you can't take mental action because that sounds silly. The paralyzed condition would agree with that sentiment too, so I guess the real question is "Does Hold Person do more than simply paralyze an opponent?".I originally thought not, but recent posts have given me cause to doubt.
Agreed.
|
|
Some pertinent information:-
subject becomes paralyzed and freezes in place. It is aware and breathes normally but cannot take any actions
The spell does more than impose the paralysed conditions.
Conditions are not, in and of themselves, mutually exclusive. For example, both being paralysed and being held also impose the helpless condition en passant. the helpless condition has a list of example conditions which also result in being helpless, and being paralysed and bring held are on that list, as separate items.
Whatever they have in common, held and paralysed are not identical conditions, nor do they have identical game effects.
One crucial difference is that a paralysed creature can take purely mental actions, while a held creature cannot take any actions at all (appart from a full round attempt at another will save), and this is not a mis-print or unintended.
The hold spells affect your mind. They are [mind-affecting] compulsions. That explains why even mental actions are not allowed.
I disagree.
I disagree.About what, and why?
About the whole "you can't delay while held" thing.
My reason? Exposed in like 20 post in the original thread.
Not like someone had read them, though.
Anyway, and regarding the original question: Can you delay while held?
The spell forbids you from taking any actions, true.
But what is the meaning of "action" that the spell is referring to?
Because the CRB uses two meanings:
-"Action", as something you choose to do (character-triggered event).
-"Action", as a thing the character do in combat.
If we are going with, say, the latter meaning, you can delay while held since the description of 'delay' specifically says that it is NOT an action.
So, Hold Person prevents you for doing 'A'.
Delay 'is not A'.
Then, you can delay.
Now, if we assume that is the former meaning, then the spell should be written in a way that specifically says that "while held, a subject only can attempt to break free with a ST...".
That's because the spell is a mental compulsion, yes, but by delaying, you are complying to the spell's command... you are doing nothing.
Nonetheless, when you arrive to your new initiative count, if you want to do something, you have to make the ST anyway.
In fact, if the spell was written saying that a held character must attempt to break free of the spell every turn, then we didn't have to discuss it in the first place.
Oh! I thought you might have been disagreeing about held being identical to paralysed.I disagree.About what, and why?About the whole "you can't delay while held" thing.
My reason? Exposed in like 20 post in the original thread.
Not like someone had read them, though.
Being held is clearly different from being paralyzed.
I think that the text of Hold Person was designed specifically to prevents (combat-related) actions that you can perform while paralyzed, like casting a Silent-Still spell or using a SLA.
But, if you take that into account, you see that all those actions have something in common: they are equivalent to a full-round/standard/move/swift/inmediate/free action.
Delaying is nothing of those.
|
|
So, can a dazed or stunned creature take attacks of opportunity?
They're not 'action' either, in that sense. If 'can't take actions' is talking about standard/move etc., then they can. If it's talking about things you choose to do, then they can't.
I have vague memories of the AoO question being asked and answered (no you can't!) a while ago. Can someone with stronger search-Fu than I find it? It may very well have concerned the caster of a dimension door, who 'After using this spell, you can't take any other actions until your next turn'.
|
Bleeding isn't an action.
Taking ongoing damage from an environmental hazard isn't an action.
Would you allow a player whose PC's arteries were slashed, to simply declare "Oh, well. I'll just lie here, and wait for some magical healing. Delaying means I don't bleed."
Or a PC who fell into lava? "Ho Hum. Guess I'll just delay, till someone pulls me out, or casts fire resistance. I only take damage if I act, so nyah."
If you allow conscious characters to always be able to delay, regardless of context, the PC doesn't have to fall into the lava, if it's too far to fall in one round. He can delay indefinitely, and hover above it for days, waiting for a passerby to help him.
"Can I take actions when I can't take actions?" What. Of course not. You can't take actions when you can't take actions. What kind of nonsense, fake zen, semi incomprehensible question is that? What is that even supposed to mean?
If it says you can't take actions, you can't take actions. The rules cannot be more clear cut then that. They just can't.
|
|
"Can I take actions when I can't take actions?" What. Of course not. You can't take actions when you can't take actions. What kind of nonsense, fake zen, semi incomprehensible question is that? What is that even supposed to mean?
If it says you can't take actions, you can't take actions. The rules cannot be more clear cut then that. They just can't.
I wish. : )
The actual question is in the first post, not the title. : )
Bleeding isn't an action.
Taking ongoing damage from an environmental hazard isn't an action.Would you allow a player whose PC's arteries were slashed, to simply declare "Oh, well. I'll just lie here, and wait for some magical healing. Delaying means I don't bleed."
Or a PC who fell into lava? "Ho Hum. Guess I'll just delay, till someone pulls me out, or casts fire resistance. I only take damage if I act, so nyah."
If you allow conscious characters to always be able to delay, regardless of context, the PC doesn't have to fall into the lava, if it's too far to fall in one round. He can delay indefinitely, and hover above it for days, waiting for a passerby to help him.
Those examples falls in the same circunstances as poison, and the Paizo staff have ruled out that the ST against poison happens in the same initiative count that the subject becomes poisoned, regardless of the current initiative of the victim.
Why? Because those things happens regardless of the character/player will.
"Can I take actions when I can't take actions?" What. Of course not. You can't take actions when you can't take actions. What kind of nonsense, fake zen, semi incomprehensible question is that? What is that even supposed to mean?
If it says you can't take actions, you can't take actions. The rules cannot be more clear cut then that. They just can't.I wish. : )
The actual question is in the first post, not the title. : )
-.- This is why people got mad at/were unimpressed with you for choosing the title you did.
Tbh, I think it would have been fine if you'd said: "Can I take actions when I can't take 'Actions'?" As is, you can't tell actions is being used in two different senses.
FAQ'ing Diego's post, too, now that I see people are doing that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, I think I got this.
Look at this. This is the description of the Summoner's "life link" ability:
Life Link (Su): Starting at 1st level, a summoner forms a close bond with his eidolon. Whenever the eidolon takes enough damage to send it back to its home plane, the summoner can, as a free action, sacrifice any number of hit points. Each hit point sacrificed in this way prevents 1 point of damage done to the eidolon. This can prevent the eidolon from being sent back to its home plane.
And this is a FAQ regarding a similar issue of that is being discused here:
Summoner: Can I use life link when it's not my turn, I'm paralyzed, or I otherwise can't take actions?
Although the ability is listed as a free action, it's something a summoner should be able to do at any time the eidolon would take enough damage to send it back to its home plane, even if it's not his turn (as is normally the case when he's being attacked), he's helpless from Strength or Dexterity poison, he's under a hold person spell, and so on. In other words, it's not an action at all, and shouldn't be listed as such.Update: APG page 56, in the Life Link description, paragraph 1, sentence 2, delete "as a free action"
—Sean K Reynolds, 09/09/11
Then, we have that the CRB says that delaying "is not an action", just like that "life link" ability, with the only difference that you can only anounce you are going to delay in your turn.
In other words, you can delay while held.
The hold spells affect your mind. They are [mind-affecting] compulsions. That explains why even mental actions are not allowed.
Where does it say mental actions are not allowed by compulsions? I would agree that a mental based action such as an SLA would not be permitted, but that is because the specifically denies actions, and an SLA requires an action to work.
How some monsters have SLA's that automatically reactivated if dispelled so no action would be needed for them to work again. In that case hold person would not stop those mental actions.
|
|
Good find!
The Life Link ability was originally incorrect; hence, the FAQ needed to provide an errata.
The sentence would then read, 'Whenever the eidolon takes enough damage to send it back to its home plane, the summoner can sacrifice any number of hit points'.
This is not only not an action, it is also not a 'no action'. It is not in the Actions In Combat tables. It's just something that happens, hence the errata.
Remember, the reason why we think you can't delay when you're denied actions is because we think that delaying is an action: specifically a special initiative action, and the reason that it's under the heading 'no action' is not because it isn't an act you choose to do, but because they don't use up any action type (standard/move etc.).
So your find won't change our view, as delay remains a special initiative action.
I could only relate to wraithstrike to answer you:
Delaying is not an action in any sense of the word. You are actually waiting until later to take your turn. Are you really trying to argue that doing nothing is actually doing something?
And again, the table and combat section excerpt exist only to inform the players that you don't have to act every round of combat, and that initiative isn't absolute, as in the first Final Fantasy videogames.
|
|
Where does it say mental actions are not allowed by compulsions?
The hold spells affect your mind. They are [mind-affecting] compulsions. That explains why even mental actions are not allowed.
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the explanation of why hold is able to prevent mental actions (when mere paralysis can't) is because hold affects the mind. This is how it makes sense that it could affect your ability to take purely mental actions.
I'm not suggesting that all compulsions prevent mental actions.
Anyway, can dazed or stunned creatures take attacks of opportunity? Can the caster of dimension door before his next turn? An AoO is something you must choose to do in order to do it, but it is not an action in terms of action type (standard/move etc.).
A "no action" is also not action like I said before. It is there as an example of things that you do that don't count as "actions(game definition)".
Once again special initiative actions are not actions, but since I am tired of repeating myself, what do you think the hold person spell means when it mentions "actions".
Is it(the word action in hold person) referring to the six actions allowed in combat that I quoted before, or do you think it just means that are normally allowed in combat?
|
|
A "no action" is also not action like I said before. It is there as an example of things that you do that don't count as "actions(game definition)".
Once again special initiative actions are not actions, but since I am tired of repeating myself, what do you think the hold person spell means when it mentions "actions".
Is it(the word action in hold person) referring to the six actions allowed in combat that I quoted before, or do you think it just means that are normally allowed in combat?
The second kind.
|
|
I could only relate to wraithstrike to answer you:
Delaying is not an action in any sense of the word. You are actually waiting until later to take your turn. Are you really trying to argue that doing nothing is actually doing something?And again, the table and combat section excerpt exist only to inform the players that you don't have to act every round of combat, and that initiative isn't absolute, as in the first Final Fantasy videogames.
Delaying is something you must choose to do, and on your turn. It's like you don't get a turn! Your initiative count comes and goes and there's nothing you can do about it.
Breathing is an automonous function. It continues while held. Although we can choose to control our breathing, or even hold our breath, if we aren't thinking about it we breathe anyway.
Initiative is similar. Although we can choose to change our initiative, if we don't do anything about it then it happens anyway. Being unable to take mental actions stops us from being able to consciously control our autonomous functions; we still breath, but we cannot choose to hold our breath. We still have an initiative score, but we can't choose to change it.
Where does it say mental actions are not allowed by compulsions?
The hold spells affect your mind. They are [mind-affecting] compulsions. That explains why even mental actions are not allowed.That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the explanation of why hold is able to prevent mental actions (when mere paralysis can't) is because hold affects the mind. This is how it makes sense that it could affect your ability to take purely mental actions.
I'm not suggesting the all compulsions prevent mental actions.
Anyway, can dazed or stunned creatures take attacks of opportunity? Can the caster of dimension door before his next turn? An AoO is something you must choose to do in order to do it, but it is not an action in terms of action type (standard/move etc.).
The spell says you are aware, and I am sure it takes more awareness to take an action, than it does to wait and do nothing which is all delaying is.
An AoO just like taking your turn on your initiative is also a choice. You have the option of not doing either one, so why are you trying to argue that one is mandatory, and the other is not?
The caster of dimension door should be able to take attacks of opportunity. He just gives up the normal actions he has remaining from how I remember the spell.
Dazed and stunned creatures can take attacks of opportunity by RAW, but not by RAI*. Hold person gives you an action that you can choose to take, so you must be mentally coherent if you can choose to decide to break a spell or not. If you are coherent(aware) enough to choose to break a spell over the course of a full round, then you are coherent enough to choose to wait until later to do so.
*I explained this already.
PS:I also don't see waiting as a mental action. It is just a decision to act now or act later. Since the creature is aware the ability to make a decision is not impeded. As an example I can decide that when I break free of the spell I am going to fireball someone. I just can't cast the fireball right now, even if it is an SLA. There is a difference between making a decision, and taking a mental action.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, first off, I agree with Malachi in spirit, but I think by the strict reading of the rules, it's unclear, and thus it's a valid interpretation at this time to rule that you can delay when held. If I were to argue it, my main point would be that delaying is a "Special Initiative Action", thus it is an action and disallowed by hold person... But I'm not going to argue that point here.
What I will point out is that the previous rulings about not being able to delay to avoid failing a save are relevant here, not as a direct corollary, but in a philosophical sense. The reason the designers have said, "No, you can't delay to avoid making your save against poison etc" is because they don't want players using the delay (special initiative) action to avoid the negative consequences of an effect/status that has been imposed on them in combat.
To me, this situation is the same. If you've been held, and it's your turn, you need to cop it - I believe delay should not be a tool to avoid negative effects/statuses, but as a tactical tool to be able to react to a changing battlefield, etc etc.
As I've stated, I think at this stage the wording of the rules is unclear enough to allow either ruling, but probably favours being able to delay. However, it's my prediction that the design team will/do agree with my philosophy that delay should not be able to be used to avoid imposed statuses/effects, as they have suggested with their previous clarifications reading saves etc.
You can not take "no action" and have it still be an action.
With that aside I would expect for hold person to be changed so that you can not delay the save until later, but I don't expect for the rules team to say "you not taking an action is still an action". That would cause more problems than I think it would solve.
You can not take "no action" and have it still be an action.
With that aside I would expect for hold person to be changed so that you can not delay the save until later, but I don't expect for the rules team to say "you not taking an action is still an action". That would cause more problems than I think it would solve.
Is this a response to my post? Because I did mention I wasn't going to argue any point on that issue, so if it was directed to me I'm not sure why...
To condense my points, they were:
A) I think Wraithstrike is more likely to be correct on this as a RAW issue as it currently stands than Malachi, despite my feelings about it in regards to RAI, or the spirit of the game
B) The design team have shown, through previous rulings/errata on related but not identical issues that they favour a philosophy whereby you cannot avoid negative statuses/effects by delay your initiative placement. I also hold this philosophy.
C) I predict that the design team will similarly rule that you cannot delay to avoid losing your actions to hold person
Edit: In response to your quote above, Wraithstrike, I will just note that taking no action is different than delaying. If the GM says, "Hewy, it's your turn - what are you doing?", a response of, "I take no action," is quite different to, "I delay my actions." The first means I don't get them, the second means I do, at later time... Because I've used a Special Initiative Action.
Now look what you've done! I said I wasn't going to argue the point! Please, just ignore me!