Delaying while paralyzed, and creatures on the same initiative

[Malag]

Malle wrote:

Malag: it appears as if I wasn't clear enough. I didn't mean that you could attempt to save and then delay, just clarifying that it's not a save you make at the end of your round. As it is a full-round action, if you manage to save you could conceivably make a 5-foot-step and take a swift action on your turn after saving.

Also, I'm glad to hear that we now have a way in real life to drtect insanity with no false positives. Every true scotsman will be glad to hear this.

Then why are you even mentioning full-round actions and what can person do during them? What does this have to do with delaying an action?

Insanity is relative but I apologize if it sounded rude to you.

Malag

[fretgod99]

Malle wrote:

Fretgod99: npc1 was "supposed" to? That may be how it has been played, but it doesn't mean it's correct. If players hadn't been using the ready action, would you argue against it when they tried to use it so that the enemy had to spend their movement instead to close the gap between them?

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. In the scenario you set up, NPC1 goes on a higher initiative count than PC. So, from the outset of the encounter, NPC1 should have two opportunities to act before PC's action in the second round.

Your example specifically implies that it would be unfair to allow an NPC to act twice before the PC's action in the second round because this would be too much for a 1 round loss. Except that is exactly what happens when the PC has to wait. If the PC does not have to wait, there is no action lost as it pertains to the NPC. NPC1 would have acted before the PC in the first round whether the PC was knocked out or not. The PC getting knocked out has nothing to do with that. NPC1 should also get to act before the PC in round 2. That extra action NPC1 gets over the PC is the benefit of having a party member perform some action which inhibits PC's ability to act. You're circumventing that by allowing the delay. The PC has not lost an action to this NPC who was set to act before the PC. So again, yes I think that is unreasonable for a 1 round disable.

If the NPC was set to act after the PC, then in all likelihood the NPC has an opportunity to act while the PC is under the effects of whatever is inhibiting him/her. As to the NPC who ordinarily acts after the PC, the PC has lost 1 action (the purpose of a 1 round disable).

If some party member of PC intercedes to clear up the disabling effect, then who cares; an action was still lost (this time the party members, as opposed to the targeted PC). But going back to the original scenario, I would not allow the BBEG to delay to allow the minion (whose action is less valuable than the BBEG) to use its action to free up the BBEG. If the minion was set to go before the BBEG already, it's an entirely different story.

Your Ready argument has nothing to do with this because it's not remotely the same circumstance.

Quote:

Let me ask you this then: Hold Person explicitly allows purely mental actions. What would you allow someone to do while being held? Stilled silent spells? Spell-like abilities? Supernatural abilities? Telepathy? Perception? Planning based on the perception?

I understand the concept behind Delaying and Readying being purely mental actions. I disagree that the circumstances are alike and fully believe that allowing Delays in these types of situations is simply allowing someone to gain the system. Ergo, I disallow it. I would not do it as a GM, because I think it is incredibly cheap. Similarly, I will not allow players at my tables to do it. I do not believe Delaying and Readying was specifically contemplated when the language in Hold Person was written.

[Malle]

Will reply in full tonight (9 hours or so) but i just want to comment that i disagree with

Quote:

in the scenario you set up, NPC1 goes on a higher initiative count than PC. So, from the outset of the encounter, NPC1 should have two opportunities to act before PC's action in the second round

and that i think it would be more appropriate to state that he should be able to take 2 turns before the PC's second turn.

[Malle]

Friend of the Dork:

Friend of the Dork wrote:

Overall the initiative mechanic combined with becoming unconscious or unable to take actions has always been odd with me - why does what you rolled before have any effect on whether you can act when you get healed or have to wait a turn? A potential fix is:

"A creature who becomes unconscious or prevented from taking physical actions has his initiative score set to 0, and can not use the Ready or Delay action."

It would be a house rule, but I think it would clear things up and prevent cheesiness.

Setting the initiative to 0 would be even weirder, as it could allow a player to get two actions in the same round. Without much thought, I think it would be more reasonable to:

a) keep them at the same initiative
b) let them enter at the initiative they regain consciousness at; or
c) let them reroll initiative when they regain consciousness (possibly with the restriction that they can act first at the next turn).

Malag:

Malag wrote:

Then why are you even mentioning full-round actions and what can person do during them? What does this have to do with delaying an action?

Because you stated the following

Malag wrote:

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

which is wrong on the issue of getting a saving throw at the end of your turn. When under the effect of Hold Person you must take a full-round action to get a saving throw. If you cannot or choose not to take that full-round action, you do not get a saving throw. This means that if you do not delay, take a full-round action to get a save and manage to do so, you would have some (limited) opportunity left to act. On the other hand, if you delayed until the spell was over, you would act later, but you would be able to take your standard allotment of actions (barring other debilitating effects).

fretgod99:

fretgod99 wrote:

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. In the scenario you set up, NPC1 goes on a higher initiative count than PC. So, from the outset of the encounter, NPC1 should have two opportunities to act before PC's action in the second round.

What I'm getting at is that Delaying while debilitated is a rule which, as far as I can tell, there is nothing in the RAW against, just like there is nothing against using Ready Action in general.

Your arguments are based on what's "supposed" to happen, but your idea of what's supposed to happen may be flawed. Say that people had not been using Ready Action because it was vague and obscurely written. However, a player realizes the possibility of readying an attack for when an opponent closes in on him from more than one movement away, meaning that instead of charging to both close the gap and get an attack, the player can use a move action for something else, attack the opponent before the opponent attacks him and still even stay before the opponent in the initiative, by using Ready Action.

This would be a situation similar to the current situation with Delay (there seems to be no RAW against it and it's at least explainable for conscious people) and would likely feel as much as cheese or gaming the system had we not been used to people being allowed to do that, but it is clearly okay, because the rules are written more explicitly and more obviously than for Delay.

fretgod99 wrote:

The PC has not lost an action to this NPC who was set to act before the PC.

This seems to be what is at the heart of the disagreement. I believe the argument is irrelevant to the legality and feasibility of Delaying while debilitated, and I strongly disagree that "actions lost against another participant" is the most important criteria.

To argue this, let's move on from Hold Person. Let's take another spell with debilitating effects. Let's look at Slow.

Slow still affects your possibility of taking actions, but you are still allowed to take a standard action or a move action. Clearly you should at the very least be allowed to use Ready Action, but there is no reason why you should not be able to Delay either (unless you are going to argue that you cannot Delay if you have any negative effect affecting you, which is silly).

Let's say that PC has been targeted by W's Slow. A number of rounds have passed and PC thinks the spell is likely to end soon (in fact, it will end on the initiative count of W's next turn). PC chooses to Delay. The spell ends and W gets her turn (let's not argue about acting on the same initiative, for now). After W is done, PC says he wants to take his turn.

The effect here is the same as you so vehemently oppose in Hold Person: the PC chooses to act later for the rest of the combat (by using Delay) to pick a more opportune moment to act. This allows him to act slightly later, as the spell has ended, instead of earlier, when the spell was still in effect.

If it was a 5 round Slow, then all other creatures (barring other changes in initiative) have had 5 turns to act while the PC was slowed (except W, who had 5 turns but PC was only slowed during 4).

We could go even further, with effects that may be both good and bad, such as Reduce Person. Would you disallow PC to delay as long as he's affected by it, because it could potentially end while he is Delaying?

No, your point is moot. You cannot hinder a character from using Delay just because an effect on them may end while they delay.

Just to clarify; here's the difference between allowing someone to Delay while under a debilitating effect. The turn order goes from left to right, with an x below marking the duration of the debilitating effect and | mark a round transition.

Standard order of initiative, no effect:
W - NPC1 - PC - NPC2 | W - NPC1 - PC - NPC2 | W - NPC1 - PC - NPC2

Effect, no delay:
W - NPC1 - PC - NPC2 | W - NPC1 - PC - NPC2 | W - NPC1 - PC - NPC2
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Effect, delay
W - NPC1 - NPC2 | W - PC - NPC1 - NPC2 | W - PC - NPC1 - NPC2
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

First, notice how the PC doesn't get to act in the round that he chose to delay in. As you can never have more than one turn per round (at least what I am aware), this means that he does indeed lose a turn, if not "an action against every other participant".

Second, notice also how in the delay case, all participants (except PC and W), regardless of initiative, get a turn each during which PC is debilitated, before it is PC's turn (as noted before, W also gets a turn, PC is just not debilitated). This means that the duration of the debilitating effect (1 round) is still in full effect (as it should be, as Delaying does not affect how long the effect lasts).

Third, notice that should W debilitate PC again, PC will lose a full round if he chooses to Delay, as he is already in the optimal place for when the spell will end.