|
The question is what you do if you want to go between two of the four dudes who act at 15. I also tend to apply it like you do and allow fluid delays, but I don't begrudge the other interpretation either, as long as it isn't combined with batch.A GM who doesn't allow a Delay to interrupt a group initiative has, effectively, rendered Delay (and likely Ready) unusable in play. If so, that is completely unfair to players because it deprives them of a fundamental option during the game. I believe that such a ruling is inconsistent with the rules. I would certainly try to appeal to the GM on this point.
Group initiative means they all go on the same initiative number, but not exactly the exact same time - we can only resolve 1 attack or action at a time. A player's actions can fit in between any of those.
I am not as forgiving of a GM who tries to stifle players in the manner to which you refer. I think it's grossly unfair and punitive to the players, based entirely on an option chosen by the GM. That type of mentality, to me, stresses a "me vs. them" option, and that's not a GM I would play under.
This goes back to the 'If you cant trust the GM to be fair, you should play something else' thing from earlier in the thread.
A lot of that going around lately, actually.
|
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.
This means that one acts before the other. They do -not- go at the same time, even if they are on the same initiative count to start with.
|
|
It was wondered why I leave out any personal details, and it's because people like to diminish my position by unfairly directing my motives towards something irrelevant.
If you never rolled as a group, then you never would have to take the time to consider "is this dangerous or unfair to do to the party" or simply regret that you did so after you realized your mistake. I say let the dice fall where they may, and every enemy caster throwing fireball at a flat footed grouped together party doesn't seem like a good time.
Bnw, I am unsure what exactly you're commenting on to say "from what you can figure" to come to that conclusion about me. Myself, personal friends, and others I've met were shocked to find pfs doing this, and this is simply our position, regardless if it benefits or hurts our characters during the course of gaming.
|
|
Bnw, if you're continuing what Diego threw into this thread, I was playing a character that Mark Seifter mentioned in his post, which was a support/defense character. Combat reflexes, reach weapon, good dex and ac. I delayed because I at the time saw no reason to make attacks since we were just talking to the npc, and goblins show up and the first attacks our healer. I request to go off delay so my character who is in the back outside of the door can go inside, and block the path so the low level ally doesn't get swarmed. I would have had plenty of aoo's on enemies that ran in to fight, and simply tripped them all with my optimized trip character, while any others I would have tanked. Instead, I was told by the rules, all monsters roll on one dice, and they all literally go at the same time, which resulted in the healer going down.
This is an extreme situation, and I doubt and hope it never happens again, at least outside of that gm. I will most likely never play with this person again, and give other players fair warning before they do.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would prefer if I never played at a table with clumped initiative ever again, for two reasons:
1. It makes player turns slower;
2. It hurts the fun.
To elaborate:
1. It makes player turns slower:
When NPC initiative is staggered, there are fewer dramatic changes to the battlefield. A few PCs go, affecting the battlefiled, a few NPCs, smaller actions that can be reacted to. When the NPCs are clumped, every time they go, it's a major shift on the battlefield. Suddenly the wizard who, between his turns, was counting out the range of a spell or the area of affect has to do it all over, on his turn while everyone else waits for him. The fighter who was all set to take a 5-foot step and full attack now has to completely reconsidered on his turn while everyone else waits for him. This will still happen with staggered initiative, but it happens far more often with clumped initiative.
2. It hurts the fun:
When you're running individual initiative, sometimes the NPCs are spread out, sometimes a couple are grouped together and can use that to their advantage. When initiative is grouped together, it's the same thing every time: all the PCs go, then all the NPCs go. Repeat for every encounter.
One of my favourite things about the D20 system is that storytelling and dramatic tropes can go out the window with an unexpected die roll. Take away a die roll, you take away an opportunity for a unique storytelling moment.
|
|
Myself, personal friends, and others I've met were shocked to find pfs doing this, and this is simply our position, regardless if it benefits or hurts our characters during the course of gaming.
FYI: this is not a PFS thing.
One thing I've come to realize over the last 10 years of going to conventions and being part of organized play on and off, is that certain rules seem to be interpreted differently in groups.
The fact that you, your personal friends, and others presumably in your local gamer community think similarly is not surprising. The game often has a small sample of progenitor teachers that teach the game similarly to their friends and so the family tree of teaching grows. This is also how mistakes in rules seem to be so prevalent in some areas but not others.
In this case your local area is the only one I've heard of that collectively has an issue with clumped initiative.
|
|
Ryan, I feel exactly the same. I show up wanting to experience the game, and have everyone participate as honestly they can, but people just want to crush the bad guys, and get their sheets. Most of the time I don't get to hear what happens at the end of the game with story line stuff, because everyone already did what you needed for the sheets.
Myself and my friends aren't used to just making decisions when it's our turn, but rather try and plan ahead, but when it's all the enemies turn to go, then you're up, then it's completely different.
People who take improved initiative and stuff to go first, and get the most out of combat can't get the most out of it because the enemy all just moves as once. I've had enemies all plan to run away, and since there were no breaks, we had absolutely no time to react.
The chaos of combat I find wonderful, because it brings out such awesome things even from the players that I've always found to be extremely memorable. Constantly changing the battle field up so you can keep being creative, while also allowing you the option to plan ahead for certain situations. I feel a lot of the glory is lost with clumping, and it's disappointing.
|
|
Andrew, why is it important that you mention that this is the only complaint you've heard?
What do you mean this isn't a pfs thing?
Edit: yes, I mentioned earlier in the thread how people teach others bad habits, and it's almost impossible to change due to it being so wide spread. People admitting they never read how initiative is written in the book makes me uneasy, but it's not shocking anymore from how often I've heard it.
|
Bnw, if you're continuing what Diego threw into this thread
With good reason. The amount of shock and anger in your posts is wildly inappropriate for a mere -they're not following the rules!-
In a few of your other posts, some combination of ABC and D have gone wrong. You fixate on A as terribad rule breaking out to destroy you and go off on a rant about it. I figured the same thing here, and it looks like I was close.
I delayed because I at the time saw no reason to make attacks since we were just talking to the npc, and goblins show up and the first attacks our healer. I request to go off delay so my character who is in the back outside of the door can go inside, and block the path so the low level ally doesn't get swarmed.
Which is a lot more ruling than just the group initiative you were grarging about. You have
1)group initiative
2) the inability to break up that group
Just because 1 is a neigh universal practice does not mean that 2 is.
1 isn't even remotely against the rules in this case. You had time to delay while someone was talking, perhaps the goblins all looked at each other, smiled, went 1 2 3 ... delayed to the same init and bum rushed your healer.
Depending on how far back you are, whether you can see through the door, hear your healer etc. whether you can suddenly react to a swarm of goblins all going at essentially the same time pouring out of nowhere and going all julias ceasar on your healer is a legitimate DM call.
Trying to impose strict raw that they can't act on the same initiative if they want to kind of defies common sense. What you're saying is that you can see a mob of goblins coming as one group, move 60 feet and beat all but the first goblin there, even though the goblins are all moving together. Thats more than a little counter intuitive and sounds more like the ready action (which can interrupt someones action) than the delay action (which can't)
|
|
Andrew, why is it important that you mention that this is the only complaint you've heard?
What do you mean this isn't a pfs thing?Edit: yes, I mentioned earlier in the thread how people teach others bad habits, and it's almost impossible to change due to it being so wide spread. People admitting they never read how initiative is written in the book makes me uneasy, but it's not shocking anymore from how often I've heard it.
You said, in my quote, that you were shocked to find PFS doing this.
I'm just reiterating this isn't a PFS thing. This has been a wide trend in DnD game play since 3.0 came out in 2000.
|
|
Bnw, I would appreciate it if you chilled out, and read all my posts properly. I don't know why any of this is important with bringing it back to diminishing my position as a whole with a singular personal experience of mine. Asserting where my motivations come from like this I find to be insulting, and unreasonable.
I've always disagreed with grouping, and that experience just caused me to realize just how bad it could get in pfs, so please, stop thinking I am being melodramatic over one game I've been in, just to selfishly prevent what I interpreted to be unfair. The goblins literally went at the same time, and not individually in any sense, which I was told was impossible at any point in the game to ever delay in between. I was literally told that because I asked specifically.
Regardless, I previously stated I find it reasonable for creatures all to go down to the same initiative, so those goblins could have very well have done that before triggering their delays on a synchronized door opening. I have never said at all that creatures can't act on the same initiative order, and would like it if you could stop dictating what you believe I'm exactly saying and doing.
I find it ironic that you perceive me to express inappropriate shock and anger when that is exactly what I get from your previous post and some others. I'll gladly clarify what I mean if I'm asked to in order to help avoid any misunderstandings, so please give me the benefit of the doubt that I indeed have a legitimate reason to post, and not assume I have some ulterior motive.
|
|
Andrew, why is it important that you mention that this is the only complaint you've heard?
What do you mean this isn't a pfs thing?Edit: yes, I mentioned earlier in the thread how people teach others bad habits, and it's almost impossible to change due to it being so wide spread. People admitting they never read how initiative is written in the book makes me uneasy, but it's not shocking anymore from how often I've heard it.
You said, in my quote, that you were shocked to find PFS doing this.
I'm just reiterating this isn't a PFS thing. This has been a wide trend in DnD game play since 3.0 came out in 2000.
myself and my personal friends know this has been a thing since back then, but our expectations where that home game preferences wouldn't be tolerated in pfs, but we quickly found out how relaxed things were after our first few games. So, as I said, it happens in pfs, but that isn't to say it ONLY happens in pfs.
Again, why is it important that this is the only complaint you've heard?
|
|
Bnw, I would appreciate it if you chilled out
There's nothing unchill here. Trust me I'm a lot funnier when I rant.
and read all my posts properly.
If you're going to accuse me of poor reading comprehension, you're going to have to demonstrate something I got wrong.
Asserting where my motivations come from like this I find to be insulting, and unreasonable.
But more importantly accurate. I don't see what you can possibly claim that's unreasonable when I'm right.
I'll gladly clarify what I mean if I'm asked to in order to help avoid any misunderstandings, so please give me the benefit of the doubt that I indeed have a legitimate reason to post, and not assume I have some ulterior motive.
You had an alterior motive. You were mad about the goblin toga party tactic, not just a group of random goblins where the DM said "Ok, roll init all the goblins are going on 8.4" .
|
|
Andrew, why is it important that you mention that this is the only complaint you've heard?
What do you mean this isn't a pfs thing?Edit: yes, I mentioned earlier in the thread how people teach others bad habits, and it's almost impossible to change due to it being so wide spread. People admitting they never read how initiative is written in the book makes me uneasy, but it's not shocking anymore from how often I've heard it.
You said, in my quote, that you were shocked to find PFS doing this.
I'm just reiterating this isn't a PFS thing. This has been a wide trend in DnD game play since 3.0 came out in 2000.
myself and my personal friends know this has been a thing since back then, but our expectations where that home game preferences wouldn't be tolerated in pfs, but we quickly found out how relaxed things were after our first few games. So, as I said, it happens in pfs, but that isn't to say it ONLY happens in pfs.
Again, why is it important that this is the only complaint you've heard?
But this isn't a home game rule. We've already stated as much and cited our source. You've even stated that your stance was softened a bit because of it.
And its important, because you are making a mountain out of a molehill here.
|
|
I'm curious to know, since I assume people didn't read page 13 of the crb to get their interpretation, just how did people came to their conclusion that you group creatures just by reading the initiative rules in the combat section? I feel thoroughly convinced when I read about "each combatant", so being enlightened by others would mean a lot.
I feel this matter is a big deal, and if others disagree that it is, then they're allowed to. I've already as you pointed out recognized the evidence, and continued in the thread to just discuss my views. I don't think it's necessary to point out that someone has only heard a complaint only from them, because it seems to invalidate where they're coming from without careful consideration, which is not to imply that you personally are, but I definitely can see others reading to dismiss something on that account.
|
|
I'm curious to know, since I assume people didn't read page 13 of the crb to get their interpretation, just how did people came to their conclusion that you group creatures just by reading the initiative rules in the combat section? I feel thoroughly convinced when I read about "each combatant", so being enlightened by others would mean a lot.
I feel this matter is a big deal, and if others disagree that it is, then they're allowed to. I've already as you pointed out recognized the evidence, and continued in the thread to just discuss my views. I don't think it's necessary to point out that someone has only heard a complaint only from them, because it seems to invalidate where they're coming from without careful consideration, which is not to imply that you personally are, but I definitely can see others reading to dismiss something on that account.
Because we didn't read just the combat section.
We read the whole book and interpreted the rules in context with one another, not independently of one another.
But as you said, you are making an assumption (that may or may not be correct): For those who did not read page 13, they likely didn't read the combat section of the book either, and are doing initiative the way they were taught by a GM they respect.
EDIT: My comments pertaining to only hearing the complaint from you, is more to put your complaint in the proper context, for you. Not for anyone else. I'm talking directly to you. You are making a mountain out of a molehill here. Seriously.
Are there corner cases where regardless how fair a GM is, that clumping initiative could become unfair? Sure. But using good tactics with the badguys (delaying and readying) can accomplish the same goal.
Are there cases where GM's don't act fairly while also clumping initiative? Sure.
But the problem is not clumping initiative.
|
|
I think it's reasonable that the book besides just the combat section can influence people to interpret things differently, but that is far too vague of an answer. I would like it if people could cite things in the book that lead them to that conclusion, so I could attempt to get a better understanding of how someone could reach that interpretation
I'm not really assuming people didn't read anything, but pointing out a reasonable possibility, which I think you can agree is possible by what you wrote before.
I would rather a gm ready and delay to accomplish the "same goal", rather than group initiative, which I've expressed before. I think it's a fair compromise to even roll all the enemies dice and quickly find the lowest number to use, because you've already determined the tactics of the enemy to be a synchronized attack.
What exactly do you find to be me making a mountain? I am sincerely asking so I can better understand, especially if I'm misunderstanding exactly what I've posted that you're applying that to.
|
|
For clarification, this isn't about monsters getting into the same initiative necessarily, but rather rolling one die to determine when they all act instead of individually rolling.
Page 13 does give indication that this is perhaps a legit and intended process, but as I stated, those are my complaints on the matter.
|
|
Initiative in itself is a weird concept when you think about it seeing how everything is technically happening at the same time.
for example: Witch slumbers an NPC fighter who is grappling your sorcerer whose initiative is between that of the witches and the fighter. The fighter has been successfully put to sleep but for the sorcerer's turn the fighter is still awake because he hasn't had a chance to sleep yet so the sorcerer is still grappled. The sorc readies an action to cast once the fighter releases his grip because the fighter failed his save( a bit meta i know, the audacity) well the ranger who also goes before the fighter now decides to take a pot shot at the fighter and hits. This would cancel out the slumber, which in turn makes the sorcerers readied action never come into play. The fighter now on his turn was falling asleep but the sharp pain of the ranger's arrow spurred him back to consciousness.
Seeing that their tactic didn't work I can do one of two things, allow for the sorcerer to drop in initiative realizing that he would not get the chance to cleanly escape as he planned but allowing him to take a different action, or I could hold him to his readied and skip his turn. The first would be the funner and more realistic of the two, the second would be the rules (or at the very least how I understand them). This is the same as the initiative question.
Your example is wrong.
The slumber hex effect is immediate. The target go to sleep as soon as the hex has been used, he become helpless and release his grip.|
|
I'm curious to know, since I assume people didn't read page 13 of the crb to get their interpretation, just how did people came to their conclusion that you group creatures just by reading the initiative rules in the combat section? I feel thoroughly convinced when I read about "each combatant", so being enlightened by others would mean a lot.
I feel this matter is a big deal, and if others disagree that it is, then they're allowed to. I've already as you pointed out recognized the evidence, and continued in the thread to just discuss my views. I don't think it's necessary to point out that someone has only heard a complaint only from them, because it seems to invalidate where they're coming from without careful consideration, which is not to imply that you personally are, but I definitely can see others reading to dismiss something on that account.
Because we didn't read just the combat section.
We read the whole book and interpreted the rules in context with one another, not independently of one another.
But as you said, you are making an assumption (that may or may not be correct): For those who did not read page 13, they likely didn't read the combat section of the book either, and are doing initiative the way they were taught by a GM they respect.
EDIT: My comments pertaining to only hearing the complaint from you, is more to put your complaint in the proper context, for you. Not for anyone else. I'm talking directly to you. You are making a mountain out of a molehill here. Seriously.
Are there corner cases where regardless how fair a GM is, that clumping initiative could become unfair? Sure. But using good tactics with the badguys (delaying and readying) can accomplish the same goal.
Are there cases where GM's don't act fairly while also clumping initiative? Sure.
But the problem is not clumping initiative.
At least another person in this thread had the same bad experience:
While I do think the OP should have been more diplomatic, I do vastly prefer, as both a GM and as a player, if the initiative is rolled individually (if there's over 20 of them, like in that one scenario mentioned above, I give each multiple of 20 all possible initiative rolls from 1 to 20, then roll the rest, though if there's like 19, I'll just roll which initiative count doesn't have a foe).
In addition to other points made in this thread, it can be very difficult for a defensive support character to get a move in edgewise if all the enemies go at once (support characters who support offense never mind going first). While I'm mostly the type to let it go and play along after I explain once what the rule is, and that's exactly what I did in this instance, I was still particularly frustrated when an extremely high star GM once not only rolled a batch initiative, he also forced my support character, who delayed specifically to break up the batch, to wait until the batch finished to come out of delay (in effect making me skip my entire first turn entirely). I played with that GM again, but I never delayed again. Now, the GM applied this "atomic inseparable batch" completely fairly in both directions--if you readied against the last enemy in the batch, you did get to go before the entire batch next turn, so readied actions were the way to go.
HF has a valid complain.
Having the NPCs act together, thanks to delaying, readying an ambush or whatever, is one thing.Not allowing PC that have delayed or readied actions to react to the group and treating it has single creature using several bodies is another.
Group initiative for small batches of secondary NPCs is a thing, having all NPCs go at the same initiative another.
|
|
Your example is wrong.
The slumber hex effect is immediate. The target go to sleep as soon as the hex has been used, he become helpless and release his grip.Slumber (Su): A witch can cause a creature within 30 feet to fall into a deep, magical sleep, as per the spell sleep. The creature receives a Will save to negate the effect. If the save fails, the creature falls asleep for a number of rounds equal to the witch's level. This hex can affect a creature of any HD. The creature will not wake due to noise or light, but others can rouse it with a standard action. This hex ends immediately if the creature takes damage. Whether or not the save is successful, a creature cannot be the target of this hex again for 1 day.
Nothing in the Advanced Player's Guide states this effect happens immediately. If there is a FAQ or something I have not read that states the effect does then I will take a look and judge it as such from now on.
As BNW says, what would make you think it doesn't take effect immediately?
The way supernatural abilities, spell-like abilities, and spells work, is when the save is failed, they take effect immediately (unless the spell or ability says otherwise). You don't really need an FAQ to adjudicate how the rules work.
|
|
As far as the rest you already know the answer, you are ignoring the fact that the creature can't do ANYTHING until its their turn or situation dictates otherwise.
Falling asleep is a situation that dictates otherwise. It is a non-action that the creature has forced on it, not an action the creature must take. If anything, it is akin to a Reflex save to take half damage being modified by Evasion.
|
|
My reasoning is the character hasn't had an action To fall asleep. Much like if I were to suggestion someone, it isn't until their turn that they actually do the suggested action. If lets say the suggestion was to kill NPC A and before the suggested creatures turn NPC A is killed the suggestion goes away. Its with this principle that the fighter in my example wouldn't lose its grapple.
Why does it take an action to fall asleep?
Do you have it work the same for the sleep spell as well?
|
To get back on track with this thread, yesterday, running The Stranger Within, I purposely rolled very initiative separately. In reality, this didn't slow things down for me at all... The biggest issue I had was a battle had six players, a familiar and an AC, and six total bad guys, almost ran out of room on the initiative tracker, and I have the new one with thinner tabs! Didn't keep me from making my normal mistake of skipping someone once and a while, but didn't make it worse, either. In fact, I t,bink it helped me with the NPCs, knowing which have done what,
Still, I think I'll be doing this from now on... Wasn't too bad at all.
Of course,I was always pretty anal about the turn order even if I clumped them.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
This goes back to the 'If you cant trust the GM to be fair, you should play something else' thing from earlier in the thread.
My reasoning is the character hasn't had an action To fall asleep.
If you cant trust the GM to be fair, you should play something else
an action To fall asleep.
|
|
My reasoning is the character hasn't had an action To fall asleep. Much like if I were to suggestion someone, it isn't until their turn that they actually do the suggested action. If lets say the suggestion was to kill NPC A and before the suggested creatures turn NPC A is killed the suggestion goes away. Its with this principle that the fighter in my example wouldn't lose its grapple.
So, do you rule that falling proine from reaching a hit point total of -1 or lower also doesn't happen until the PC/NPC's turn?
How about falling prone from being tripped?
Seriously, when you fall asleep, whether it is a Slumber hex, a sleep spell, or being narcoleptic, you fall over asleep at the time.
