A creature that's paralyzed, helpless, or otherwise unable to act, has no actions to delay.
Not true. A paralyzed creature can take purely mental action, as stated in the spoiler above.
Is it possible for a paralyzed creature to delay its actions until the paralysis stops? (or during other, similar effects, such as being hit by the Sleep spell)
Yes, provided you take all involuntary effects before delaying. That is, if you're bleeding or affected by poison those have the beginning of your turn effects that they have, and THEN you delay.
If I Delay on my turn and choose to act on the same Initiative count as another creature, can I choose whether I act before them or after them?
You follow the rules of initiative modifiers if you choose to act on the same initiative as another creature. What you might do instead is to Ready (if you're able to take a standard action) instead of Delay if you want to do a standard action JUST before some other actor does its turn but don't want the possibility of anything else happening between. In this case, however, you can't ready as that requires a standard action (unless readying is considered a purely mental action).
Example: on Round 1, Initiative 13 a level 2 Witch (Caster Level 3) casts Hold Person on a humanoid creature, with initiative 5, which fails its save. The paralysis effect will end at the beginning of Round 4, Initiative 13. The humanoid creature wants to act as soon as possible, so each time it is its turn, it attempts to save at the beginning of its turn, but fails in this case. Can it then Delay so that it gets to act on Round 4, Initiative 13, when the paralysis stops?
So on Round 3, initiative 5, your humanoid, after failing the save, delays his turn into the next round. Sounds legit so far.
Does it get to choose to act before the Witch, or is the tie-breaker system used?
I don't think so, as there is no exception referenced in the rules for delay.
For that matter, should the tie-breaker system be used every round, or just at the point two creatures attain the same initiative?
Once the tie is resolved, it remains resolved until there's some other initiative modifying effect.
EDIT: fixed missing bracket that was messing up quotes
Where are pureley mental actions defines in the rules or mentioned anywhere?
Where are pureley mental actions defines in the rules or mentioned anywhere?
I don't think they are properly defined anywhere, but I could be wrong on that. I'll let someone else dig that up. It is my opinion that the line about "taking purely mental actions" should just be removed from the paralyzed condition as the easiest way to answer these types of questions. I find it hard to believe that the intent of that line was to allow a BBEG to avoid losing their whole turn by dropping down in the initiative order past their minion who casts dispel magic on them...
I think Malle presents a good argument: Paralyze allows you to take purely mental actions, and therefore does not remove your ability to take all actions - but regardless, 'delaying' is not defined as an action type, and thus is 'not an action', meaning that you should likely be able to do so while paralyzed.
I'm indifferent on this one from an "official ruling" standpoint, though I am curious to see where the conversation leads.
I would say "no" this at at my own table and my reason is that I am probably the only one of my players who follows the forums closely enough to even consider this tactic. Thus, where I to pull this on my players it would be the DM using system mastery against the players, which is not something I'm willing to do. (The DM has enough advantages already if he wants to take them - my job is to make sure they have fun, and using the system against the players seems adversarial to me.) Were it to come up, I would simply point out that the monsters will not be doing so, and thus the players will not be either. I figure this is one of fairness.
|
A sorcerer could likely cast a stilled silent spell as it requires no physical action.
Likewise, a caster could direct the actions of an already existing spell, such as Flaming Sphere or use already active abilities that require only concentration to maintain (Detect Evil, Detect Thoughts, Detect Magic, etc.
A paralyzed character is not deprived of his actions, only the ability to physically implement them.
This is the part you got wrong.
The paralysis effect will end at the beginning of Round 4, Initiative 13.
The paralysis effect will end at the beginning of the witch's turn on that round. So if the paralyzed guy delays until then and goes before the witch, he is still paralyzed. If he delays until then and goes after the witch, he is not paralyzed. In either case, the witch will get to act first in round 4 (unless the paralyzed guy goes first with a purely mental action).
The only time it gets weird is if the witch has also delayed or readied an action that changed her initiative, in which case, the paralysis ends exactly as described in the OP, at the start of "Round 4, Initiative 13" and if the paralyzed guy delays to that initiative, he will be unparalyzed - but in that case, the witch is on a different initiative so no tie breakers are needed.
Malle, this may be splitting hairs as you are correct, it does say "until the beginning of the witch's turn", but she cannot just keep delaying and the effect go on forever. Every interpretation (and every rule is interpretated, regardless of silly RAW vs RAI arguments)that I have ever seen is that the "witch's turn" remains on the initiative count that it was cast at even if the witch actually delays or somehow move in the initiative count.
As for delays in general, they cannot interrupt an action that has begun. However, they could always act before another action regardless of what the actual number (or integer) of the initiative count. So, if I want to delay to go before my foe, that is fine. I just cannot interrupt his action with a delay once he has started. I would need a readied action for that.
Edit: It looks like Malle's post changed so that my response looks a little out of place, especially now that it looks like we are in agreement.
|
Delaying your action while being paralyzed by Hold Person in the above example would provide you no benefit, because you gain a new Saving Throw at the end of your turn. Similar with other effects, if you do not waste a round on being paralyzed, your paralyzed condition continues.
This is at least how I would interpret the rules.
Malag
What's the big deal?
Look at the OP's scenario. The witch paralyzes the guy on round 1. He loses his actions on round 1, 2, and 3, but the paralysis ends on round 4 before his initiative count. Three actions lost, he gets to act in round 4.
If he delays, he still takes no actions (other than delaying) in rounds 1, 2, and 3 and he still gets to act in round 4. The only difference is that he gets to act in initiative count 13 instead of 5, which is the usual benefit of delaying - you get to select an initiative count you like better than your current one.
If the witch is still acting on count 13 in the 4th round, if the paralyzed guy is first he's still paralyzed until the witch's turn, otherwise if he goes after the witch, she still gets her turn before he gets to go, exactly like she would have if he didn't delay.
Doesn't hold person require you to expend a full round action to make the save?
If you are spending a full round action every round to break free, then how are you delaying?
Maybe you're not trying to break free - if you're only delaying and not resisting, then you aren't using your round for anything at all.
Would it not almost always be better to break fee earlier, then to act on the following round then to wait several rounds for the duration to expire?
I'm having difficulty coming up with a situation in which delaying until the duration expired would be more beneficial.
What's the big deal?
The scenario which caused outrage in a previous thread (can't search and link easily from my phone, sorry) involved a BBEG who delayed for about 1/4 of a round (initiative 15 to initiative 10, for example) so that one of his minions could cast dispel magic on the hold person spell effecting him. The result was that the Hold Person spell did not cost the BBEG any actions, since no allies went between him and his minion.
People for it argued that it still cost his minion the dispel magic, for which he had to beat the caster level of the casting player.
Some people were against it because they felt it was DM hive mind fiat for them to coordinate so well.
Others were against it on the grounds that they didn't think Hold Person should allow delaying.
Would it not almost always be better to break fee earlier, then to act on the following round then to wait several rounds for the duration to expire?
I'm having difficulty coming up with a situation in which delaying until the duration expired would be more beneficial.
I don't know that anyone's suggesting that you just forego all your earlier saves; you try for those saves every time it's allowed - except the last one.
On that last one, if you're playing a class that is particular bad at that save type and the DC of the save is higher than you can feasibly make, then it would be more effective to forego the save, delay your action, and still have an action to take after the paralysis expires.
I think it is a valid tactic for a group of fighting individuals to do this. Any team will gain this kind of cohesiveness, or die. It is not so much of a hive mind as it is situational awareness. Now, if the BBEG was three towns over and a minion was teleported in at just the right time, then we are talking hive mind.
Look at the OP's scenario. The witch paralyzes the guy on round 1. He loses his actions on round 1, 2, and 3, but the paralysis ends on round 4 before his initiative count. Three actions lost, he gets to act in round 4.It ends on the witch's turn, not his, so delaying would "allow" him to act on round 3, and still before the witch, because it's on her count but you can choose to act before her. It's a dumb technicality, but that's the big deal.
Why would it end? It ends when she goes. You delayed until just before she goes. While I don't have a problem delaying until you are freed by some means, I don't see a way for you to delay to the exact point between the spell ending normally and the witch going.
How could you possibly know which round is the "last one?" Is that not metagaming? Not even the caster knows the duration of some of his spells.
How could you possibly know which round is the "last one?" Is that not metagaming? Not even the caster knows the duration of some of his spells.
Well, there is that also.
Not sure I agree about not knowing the duration of a spell. I have always assumed that the caster and the target of an effect have an innate understanding of the duration of the effect. Some spells (Feather Fall, for example) would be deadly and far less useful if you didn't have a sense of the duration of the effect. Or you'd have people suffering from broken spines because they miscounted and their Ant Haul effect suddenly expired while they were still carrying the thousand pounds of loot.
Under no specific circumstances would I allow a PC to simply delay their initiative in order to circumvent a condition. Period. Full stop.
I don't see need to parse terminology and scenarios. This way lies a field of cheese.
If you're to be paralyzed for a round, you're not going to reduce that to "wait a bit then act normally" by delaying part of a round. Not at my table.
Under no specific circumstances would I allow a PC to simply delay their initiative in order to circumvent a condition. Period. Full stop.
I don't see need to parse terminology and scenarios. This way lies a field of cheese.
If you're to be paralyzed for a round, you're not going to reduce that to "wait a bit then act normally" by delaying part of a round. Not at my table.
This is where the turn based part gets a little screwy.
Imagine this round:
Witch paralyzes you.
You miss your turn.
Friend dispels paralyze.
You still miss your turn.
Or this round:
Witch paralyzes you.
You delay your turn.
Friend dispels paralyze.
You beat down witch.
I think the second round flows better and is more dramatic. I don't like the idea that the witch knows that just because the spell landed, she knows she is safe from him for a round. That is also metagaming, isn't it?
You only have to delay to that initiative, you don't need to know how long the spell lasts. So you could delay to that initiative on your first round, then if you fail all your saves you could start acting just before the Witch, on the initiative count when the Hold Person ends.
That's a fair point about the duration, but how are you delaying AND spending a full round action to make the saves? If you delay, you don't even get a save!
I don't like the idea that the witch knows that just because the spell landed, she knows she is safe from him for a round. That is also metagaming, isn't it?
By RAW, a caster knows immediately if the spell she cast failed due to a successful saving throw.
A creature that successfully saves against a spell that has no obvious physical effects feels a hostile force or a tingle, but cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack. Likewise, if a creature's saving throw succeeds against a targeted spell, you sense that the spell has failed.
I don't like the idea that the witch knows that just because the spell landed, she knows she is safe from him for a round. That is also metagaming, isn't it?
The witch, who just got surprised by a spell from the holy man (cleric; he won initiative) realizes that the heavily armored man (the fighter) is a bit slow on his feet and that she can get the drop on him (her initiative beat his) before he tries to gut her if she can JUST stick this spell.
If the spell lands, the heavily armored man will be significantly delayed in getting to her (he loses a turn) and she buys her self some time to put distance between herself and the fighter, plus time to deal with the holy man.
Edit: Also, what Xaratherus said about being aware of whether the spell sticks or not.
It does raise an interesting thought: I would assume that for a spell that allows saving throws round by round to break free, the caster would know that the effect was still active - and would instantly know when the effect was broken (i.e., the saving throw was successfully made).
This is where the turn based part gets a little screwy.
Imagine this round:
Witch paralyzes you.
You miss your turn.
Friend dispels paralyze.
You still miss your turn.Or this round:
Witch paralyzes you.
You delay your turn.
Friend dispels paralyze.
You beat down witch.I think the second round flows better and is more dramatic. I don't like the idea that the witch knows that just because the spell landed, she knows she is safe from him for a round. That is also metagaming, isn't it?
I hear you, but still don't accept the second scenario.
Imagine this:
Barbarian clubs you.
You fall unconscious and then miss your turn.
Cleric heals you and you wake up.
You still miss your turn.
Or this round:
Barbarian clubs you.
You fall unconscious and delay your turn.
Cleric heals you and you wake up.
You full attack the barbarian (from the ground).
Same thing, only... it reeks (to me) of cheese. Someone did something to you. You failed your save or your armor class was insufficient, or, or, or, but you failed. You are entitled to suffer the penalty intended. Playing with the delay mechanic to this extend just doesn't feel right to me. I get it that it's just a question of degree. "I delay until after Grunto opens the door so I can fireball the next room." It's tactical. But doing it to evade penalties? Meh.
As for the metagaming side of things, the game tells you that you know when your abilities work. You know when someone fails your save. To know that your hold person actually worked then find out it didn't... that's (generally) not cool. You know what your abilities do. Players are able to observe initiative order and so are monsters. They know that if the wizard goes before the fighter, hold person might get dispelled before it's useful. But they also know that if fighter goes first, it is useful.
You'd have to have monster groups doing this sort of thing too, which in the long run should annoy your players into stopping using the tactic. Finding out their abilities are a waste of time isn't fun*.
*Irrelevant full disclosure. Last week a ran an encounter where an NPC used an ability on a bad guy, thought it worked, only the bad guy was immune and faked being paralyzed for two initiative counts, for dramatic effect. She knew what he was doing and deliberately failed her save, then Bluffed to make it seem his ability had worked. Again, this was done to impress upon the PCs that she was SMART and DANGEROUS. There was no in-game effect beyond the not-being-paralyzed that would have happened regardless.
@Anguish, re: Irrelevant full disclosure. I like the idea, but at the same time I don't know how well it could have worked. I would have granted a pretty large Sense Motive bonus to the caster to know that the BBEG was faking it.
Under no specific circumstances would I allow a PC to simply delay their initiative in order to circumvent a condition. Period. Full stop.
I don't see need to parse terminology and scenarios. This way lies a field of cheese.
If you're to be paralyzed for a round, you're not going to reduce that to "wait a bit then act normally" by delaying part of a round. Not at my table.
This is precisely how I felt when the scenario was first presented. Still feel this way. It just seems wrong.
And the only point to delaying here is if you initially went before the Witch in the first round. If you were set to go after the Witch, the spell would have already worn off by that initiative count in round 4.
Acting Before the Witch:
Round 1:
PC acts
Witch casts Hold Person
Round 2:
PC misses turn
Round 3:
PC misses turn
Round 4:
PC misses turn
Hold Person wears off right before Witch's turn
3 turns missed (2, 3, and 4)
Acting After the Witch:
Round 1:
Witch casts Hold Person
PC misses turn
Round 2:
PC misses turn
Round 3:
PC misses turn
Round 4:
Hold Person wears off right before Witch's turn
PC acts
3 turns missed (1, 2, and 3)
Allowing the PC in scenario 1 to delay in Round 4 means the PC only misses two turns of action. That just seems like gaming the system to me. I'd not allow it. I liken it to other deleterious effects, which cannot be circumvented by special initiative actions.
Allowing the PC in scenario 1 to delay in Round 4 means the PC only misses two turns of action. That just seems like gaming the system to me. I'd not allow it. I liken it to other deleterious effects, which cannot be circumvented by special initiative actions.
That's somewhat a matter of perspective. The witch got to take 3 turns before her opponent got to act again, and that is the same whether the opponent went right after the which as soon as the spell wore off, or if the spell wore off, next round started, then the opponent went before the witch.
In fact if the witch and her opponent are the only combatants then there is no difference at all. It's only when you add additional combatants that suddenly the delay till paralyze ends even has any meaning.
Result: 1 round PC did not act in, NPC1 gets 2 turns to act before PC (asleep for 1), NPC2 gets 1 turn (asleep for 1) and W gets 1 turn (asleep for 0). PC acts at R2-I5
Now, if we let the PC Delay:
R1-I9 W sleep PC
R1-I7 NPC1 acts (PC asleep)
R1-I5 PC delays (missed turn)
R1-I3 NPC2 acts (PC asleep)
R2-I9 PC awakes, W acts
R2-I8 PC actsResult: 1 round PC did not act in, NPC1 gets 1 turn to act before PC (asleep for 1), NPC2 gets 1 turn (asleep for 1) and W gets 1 turn (asleep for 0). PC acts at R2-I8.
The difference? No opponent gets the possibility of acting twice before its the PC's turn again. Is this so unreasonable for a 1 round disable? Is that not exactly what a 1 round disable should do?
Except NPC1 is supposed to act twice before the PC gets to act in the second round; that's precisely how the initiative was rolled. If the PC had never been put to sleep, NPC1 would have acted twice before the PC's second round of initiative anyway. So yes, that is unreasonable for a 1 round disable because one of the other characters wasn't afforded the opportunity to take advantage of the inaction. You've now disadvantaged NPC1 (or PC1 if the roles are reversed like they were in the original scenario) by allowing the delay.
It seems much less innocuous when you flip the PCs and NPCs and the PC who was put to sleep is now the BBEG that the PCs prevented from acting for a turn because the BBEG failed the will save on whatever spell we want to talk about. PC1 would probably be more than a little bit upset by GM initiative order shenanigans that meant s/he no longer got that extra action before BBEG casts Ultima, particularly when getting PC1 that extra action might have been the entire point of that maneuver. And having a minion cast dispel in the ordinary initiative order to circumvent the spell is completely different than have the BBEG simply circumvent the disadvantage by delaying to avoid the problem.
It feels just like trying to delay away the onset of poison. I recognize that not everybody feels the same way and that it's not something that's explicit in the rules. But I would never allow it and I would never pull something like that on the PCs in games I'm GMing. It just seems cheap.
|
|
[bigger]Malag:
Delaying your action while being paralyzed by Hold Person in the above example would provide you no benefit, because you gain a new Saving Throw at the end of your turn. Similar with other effects, if you do not waste a round on being paralyzed, your paralyzed condition continues.
This is at least how I would interpret the rules.
Malag
No, they can take a full-round action to attempt a Saving Throw, as per the spell description:
Each round on its turn, the subject may attempt a new saving throw to end the effect. This is a full-round action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity.Making that save should allow them to take a 5-foot step and a swift action on the turn they saved.
Then you are making a full-round action to gain new save. If you choose to delay you simply wouldn't get new save. You are stretching the rules. No sane GM will grant this.