|
It seem that your problem is a Pathfinder society GM, not the rules. I don't think that it is a problem that can be resolved by the rule forum, especially after you have show the relevant pieces of the rules to the GM.
The best solution would be to contact the Venture Captain of your area and have him explaining how readied actions work.
Not to be offensive, but your posts have a tendency to be unclear and passive/aggressive when someone disagree with you or ask clarifications on what you want to achieve. That put the person reading your post in a hostile frame of mind instead of being receptive to your problem.
So, if you contact a VC, try to be as clear as possible even if the whole issue with the mismanaging of the initiative pains you. Probably the best solution would be to get a VC, your GM and you at a table, playing the scenario with which you have problem. That way the VC would see first hand what is the problem and correct the GM.
This is from p.121 of the 3.0 PHB, where the d20 system first describes the cyclical round that PF uses now, in contrast to the static rounds used before.
In the same book...
Hahaha.
Go on about Dungeons and Dragons. I'm sure at least some people care.
In the mean time, I'll be over here... discussing Pathfinder.
Really though... resorting to D&D rules to win a moderately irrelevant Pathfinder rules debate is silly. Those rules do not apply here.
It is a different, although similar, game. Stick to Pathfinder rules when discussing Pathfinder rules.
Anywho…
Like the rules say. Effects start on and end before the initiative count they came into being on. Effects do. All of that is correct.
However, when discussing this round, the round, etc. The game is generally referring to the actual round. ‘Your round’ etc refers to the time period of your init to just before the same init on the next round.
But the readied action text says “the round”. That is a specific reference to ‘the round’, not to ‘your round’.
.
'Seeing other DMs do this' means that he didn't realise the crucial points. Creatures can appear to all go together if they act on the same initiative count, but if no-one is trying to stop them, by delaying or readying or whatever, then it makes no difference so the DM might as well do that because it's effectively what happens.
But it's not actually what happens, which is that they take their actions one after the other, and the first moves then readies an attack which is triggered when his mate gets into flanking position. There's nothing wrong with this.
What is wrong is imagining that they are all acting simultaneously, denying delayed actions to do what the rules say they can, which is to go whenever they want.
Even if it's too late for this combat, you must keep pointing out where he's going wrong and why. If you don't it'll keep happening and keep happening until the players do the same and combat becomes a mockery. I've tried it before I realised that the tactic of delaying until all the characters act on the same initiative count (perfectly legal) is vulnerable to counter-measures, such as Delay/Ready.
'Acting on the same Init count' is not an auto win button.
I... agree, wholeheartedly with this.
Malachi has hit the nail on the head with this post. Yes, creatures can all work together effectively with a combination of delaying/readying to get themselves all onto the same initiative count... and even 'in effect' all move then act, but establishing well coordinated readied actions.... they do not all go on the same turn however.
That means that you, or anyone else, can muck up their delivery of said tactics by using your own delays or readied actions.
I have a DM who lumps all of the enemies together, and it can be extremely troublesome at times. I've always let it go, because his reason is "It is easier to track", and he is already managing quite a lot. But, then again, he has them take full tactical advantage of being able to coordinate simultaneously... flanking, drawing AoOs in specific orders, etc.
I think I'll bring it up again before our next game, and offer the compromise that he have the enemies roll initiative individually, and then use delay as needed to line up their initiative count, instead of automatically lining them all up with whichever enemy has the highest init modifier on a single roll.
His current method has lead to PC deaths well before anyone could even act, by having all the enemies focus fire on one PC. While this compromise wouldn't prevent focus fire like that, it might well allow the higher init folk do something to avoid it.
It is also in line with the rules, so, added perk.
|
|
Just a question, someone know how the mob rules in Reign of Winter work? It is possible that the GM is using them out of context?
Please, if the reply contain some information that will influence play, use spoilers, as I am currently playing that campaign and I think there will be other people reading this board doing that.
|
This is from p.121 of the 3.0 PHB, where the d20 system first describes the cyclical round that PF uses now, in contrast to the static rounds used before.
In the same book...
Hahaha.
Go on about Dungeons and Dragons. I'm sure at least some people care.
In the mean time, I'll be over here... discussing Pathfinder.
Really though... resorting to D&D rules to win a moderately irrelevant Pathfinder rules debate is silly. Those rules do not apply here.
It is a different, although similar, game. Stick to Pathfinder rules when discussing Pathfinder rules.
Anywho…
Like the rules say. Effects start on and end before the initiative count they came into being on. Effects do. All of that is correct.
However, when discussing this round, the round, etc. The game is generally referring to the actual round. ‘Your round’ etc refers to the time period of your init to just before the same init on the next round.
But the readied action text says “the round”. That is a specific reference to ‘the round’, not to ‘your round’.
.
Before 3rd ed, the combat rounds were static. You re-rolled initiative each round, and could easily end up going last in one round and first in the next, getting two turns consecutively. This was fundamentally changed in 3rd ed.
What 3.0 established remains true in 3.5 and PF...unless they changed it back to the static round! Can you show any evidence of where PF changed it back to a static round?
The cyclical combat round wasn't changed in 3.5 or PF. It is the foundation of d20 combat. There is absolutely no difference to a guy who is going 'last' on init count of -3 to him going 'first' if he delays to init count of 24 on the 'next' round. He will have changed absolutely nothing: he won't suddenly be able to 5-foot step, nor will he be able to take an AoO again if he used it since his last turn.
PF uses the term 'round' because it knows that it refers to your personal round for everything in the game. The init count just establishes the order in which the combatants take their turn. Once that has been set, the numbers have no meaning at all.
Combat is measured in rounds. During an individual round, all creatures have a chance to act, in order of initiative. A round represents 6 seconds in the game world.
'During an individual round' each creature does all the stuff it can do, and that stuff is measured in its own individual round.
When the rules refer to a "full round", they usually mean a span of time from a particular initiative count in one round to the same initiative count on the next round.
This is what a "round" usually means. If something is an exception to this, it will say so.
The round initiative clicking over from -3 to 24 (or whatever) has absolutely no effect on the game! It only exists as an unavoidable metagame construct, and doesn't influence when individual abilities reset.
|
Well, now that you've actually told us what you wish to accomplish, here is what I have to say.
This isn't a matter of Readied Action rules. This is a matter of PFS rules.
I suggest you take this concern to your area's VC, your GM should not be moving all the monsters at once. Everything must have its own initiative. This is a matter of running games by RAW. (And no House Rules.)
I wrote that witnessing this stuff gave me ideas. I still want to discuss readied actions and such. Gm's running things all screwy is not what this thread is about.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is from p.121 of the 3.0 PHB, where the d20 system first describes the cyclical round that PF uses now, in contrast to the static rounds used before.
In the same book...
Hahaha.
Go on about Dungeons and Dragons. I'm sure at least some people care.
In the mean time, I'll be over here... discussing Pathfinder.
Really though... resorting to D&D rules to win a moderately irrelevant Pathfinder rules debate is silly. Those rules do not apply here.
It is a different, although similar, game. Stick to Pathfinder rules when discussing Pathfinder rules.
Anywho…
Like the rules say. Effects start on and end before the initiative count they came into being on. Effects do. All of that is correct.
However, when discussing this round, the round, etc. The game is generally referring to the actual round. ‘Your round’ etc refers to the time period of your init to just before the same init on the next round.
But the readied action text says “the round”. That is a specific reference to ‘the round’, not to ‘your round’.
.
So, your position is that if I ready an action in round 1 after having moved, I cannot take a 5' step if my readied action triggers on or before Round 1, Initiative Count [lowest]. But, I can take a 5' step if my readied action triggers on or before Round 2, Initiative Count [highest].
That seems curious to me, considering there's really no functional difference between Round 1, Initiative Count [lowest] and Round 2, Initiative Count [highest].