There's an interesting scenario that came up during combat in the last session I ran. I'll lay out the context quickly.
An Eldritch Guardian Fighter has a mauler familiar. In the middle of combat, the Fighter (we'll call him Bob) applies an Oil of Merge with Familiar to his familiar (we'll call him Fox) during a combat. This allows them to merge with each other to share the same body.
Bob's initiative is 4, and Fox's is 3. Bob delays his turn until after Fox, and merges with Bob. Bob then takes his turn, moving next to the enemy and attack. Next round, Bob now goes before Fox, but he delays to go after Fox. Fox exits Bob and attacks the enemy (killing it), and then Bob takes his delayed turn. With his turn, Bob merges Fox into him and them moves towards the next enemy. Next round, Fox delays until after Bob's turn, and Bob spends his turn moving closer to the enemy and attacking. Fox the takes his turn, exiting Bob and attacking.
The cycle continues in this manner for the rest of the combat. My players says that Bob delaying his turn changes his position in initiative (which I agree with, that's what delaying is for) but puts him on the same initiative count as Fox. After that, the two of them can just choose which order they act in because they share initiative and breaking initiative ties with DEX is only done when initiative is originally rolled. According to Bob's player, continuing to alternate delays every turn is really just a formality, he doesn't need to do it because the two share initiative now and can choose which order they act in for the rest of the combat.
My understanding of how delaying works is that when you delay to go after someone, you actually go AFTER them. Fox doesn't move to a tied initiative with Bob, he moves to the initiative after Bob. Each time they delay, they move further back in initiative. If there was an enemy behind them in initiative (an initiative score of 1, for a convenient example), Bob and Fox would eventually also be moving after that enemy once their initiative drops below 1.
Who is correct? I'm fairly baffled by this situation. If Bob's player is correct, it seems like a party should almost always delay until the entire acts on the same initiative, because even though that lets most or all of the enemies act earlier than the party the party gets the tremendous advantage of always being able to pick the order they act in each round.
If you delay until after someone you move below them on for initiative.
I think this bars them from choosing even if they manage to get on the same count.
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.
Admittedly that's written about the start of combat, not the middle, but I see no reason it shouldn't apply.
If you delay until after someone you move below them on for initiative.
That's what I said, but my player disagreed. Delaying is described in the rules like so:
"When you delay, you voluntarily reduce your own initiative result for the rest of the combat. When your new, lower initiative count comes up later in the same round, you can act normally. ... Your initiative result becomes the count on which you took the delayed action. If you come to your next action and have not yet performed an action, you don't get to take a delayed action (though you can delay again)."
The way the phrases "initiative result" and "initiative count" are repeatedly used makes it seem pretty clear to me that you actually adjust your initiative score and use it to determine your new position in combat (which means that if you move to the same initiative as someone else, you have to break ties by DEX, at least in terms of RAW). My player felt that initiative and DEX scores are only used to determine the turn order at the start of combat and are then basically "forgotten". They are no longer used to determine turn order once combat has actually started.
Here is proof that your player is wrong.
It is in the quote he used.
"When you delay, you voluntarily reduce your own initiative result for the rest of the combat. When your new, lower initiative count comes up later in the same round, you can act normally. ...
He can't have a lower reduced initiative count and still have the same count.
If the rules just said he changes the order he goes in compared to everyone else then he could still keep the same number as another character in circumstances where they both had the same initiative count/result, meaning they would be on the same count, but he would be going after them.
However it specifically calls out the initiative count/result which is the number used to determine when you go.
Let's say combat starts here:
Character A with Initiative 26, modifier +6
Character F with Initiative 20, modifier +4 won the tiebreak with Character C
Character C with Initiative 20, modifier +4
Familiar F with Initiative 6, modifier +5
And the Familiar does a Delay. It should be able to end up anywhere it wants in the initiative order in the next round. It should not be limited by its number or modifier, nor any other character's number or modifier.
Even though Familiar F could not have rolled to beat A, it can still end up in position 1 if it elects to do so.
Even though Familiar F has a modifier of +5, it can still elect to go between characters F and C with them both having a +4.
But once in that position, the characters and familiars should remain in those exact positions, unless someone again does a delay.
If you have two individuals in delay, coordinating with each other, there's really not much stopping them from deciding which goes first. So yes, they can alternate from round to round on which goes first.
I agree that it's possible, but with some limitations. First, if you delay to act on the same initiative count as someone else, whether you go before or after them is determined by the normal rules for resolving initiative ties. Second, if you instead to delay to an initiative count below theirs and then the pair of you continue doing this round after round to alternate which of you goes first, eventually your initiative scores will be lower than that of someone else in combat. In other words, if you repeatedly alternate which of you two goes first, eventually you'll also both be going after someone who you previously both went before.
Note that that with Merge With Familiar each merge/unmerge does cost a move action, so they're actually losing quite a bit of action economy by doing that.
For example, when you said "With his turn, Bob merges Fox into him and them moves towards the next enemy.", Bob has actually given up his standard action to pull this trick off. So yeah, it's a clever thing, but not that overpowered.
If an enemy really wants to counter this, they can always ready an action to attack the emerging familiar and 5' step away, or similar.
Yeah, I don't think it's especially over-powered. I was more wondering whether I was right that doing this little maneuver would eventually put Bob and Fox behind other people in initiative order. After the discussion so far in this thread and my extra research on how initiative and delaying works, I'm more convinced than I was before that I am correct.
Even though Familiar F could not have rolled to beat A, it can still end up in position 1 if it elects to do so.
Even though Familiar F has a modifier of +5, it can still elect to go between characters F and C with them both having a +4.
This is probably the way I would handle things, but I don't think it's necessarily correct by RAW, because it ignores the initiative scores that are being used to determine turn order. I don't believe initiative scores are "forgotten" after combat starts or that they stop being used to determine turn order.
For your first example, I'll refer to this portion of the rules about delaying: "If you take a delayed action in the next round, before your regular turn comes up, your initiative count rises to that new point in the order of battle, and you do not get your regular action that round." That means what's happening in this situation is that the familiar's delay is setting its initiative score to some number arbitrarily higher that A's initiative score- it could be 26, 30, or 100, but the point is that initiative scores are still being used to determine the turn order.
In your second example, it's a bit weird because by RAW what should happen is that the familiar delays and sets its initiative to 20 but then is subject to having its exact place in turn order determined by a tie breaker. In other words, the familiar can choose to move on initiative count 20, but it can't choose what order it moves in relative to the other characters on initiative count 20 because that is determined by the rules for a breaking initiative ties. The text supporting this comes from the general rules for initiative: "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." Nothing in that text implies that such tie breakers are only used when initiative is first rolled.
Of course, that's a case of RAW being a little silly and I don't think I know anyone who would try to say that the familiar couldn't choose to go between characters F and C. So in the end, I agree with how you say your hypothetical situations SHOULD be handled, although I don't think it is supported by RAW.
For a situation where I believe our interpretations would differ, consider circumstances similar to what I outlined in the opening post- something where you have two allies delaying in an alternating fashion for whatever reason. If there was an enemy who started behind them in initiative count at the beginning of the fight, this process of two people continually delaying to act after the other would mean they eventually end up acting after the enemy is question. At least, that's what I would say, because each time they delay they are actually reducing their initiative count and then using that new count to recalculate their position in turn order. Repeatedly lowering their initiative score in such a manner means that it will eventually be lower than that of someone else who was originally behind them in initiative.
That is correct. They will fall behind an enemy if they keep delaying like that because they keep dropping to a lower count.
|
Hey, guys - why don't you just use common sense?
The rules for determining initiative sequence (and the tie-breaker rules) happen at the start of combat; once that sequence has been determined they're not a mechanic that has to be rigidly followed during combat in defiance of common sense.
I'll happily let anyone delay their initiative to slot themselves exactly where they want to be in the initiative sequence. Anyone who insists that I can't do that because a rules-lawyer reading of the rules insists on an artificial numeric initiative count limited to just 20 distinct values will be reminded that this is a game, not a legal trial.
I'll even do this at a PFS table - I'm happy to engourage players to remember the third part of the Pathfinder Society maxim and cooperate!
Oh, I'm content with applying common sense to these situations. I believe I mentioned something to that effect earlier. I'm just curious about how this all works by RAW.
Hey, guys - why don't you just use common sense?The rules for determining initiative sequence (and the tie-breaker rules) happen at the start of combat; once that sequence has been determined they're not a mechanic that has to be rigidly followed during combat in defiance of common sense.
I'll happily let anyone delay their initiative to slot themselves exactly where they want to be in the initiative sequence. Anyone who insists that I can't do that because a rules-lawyer reading of the rules insists on an artificial numeric initiative count limited to just 20 distinct values will be reminded that this is a game, not a legal trial.
I'll even do this at a PFS table - I'm happy to engourage players to remember the third part of the Pathfinder Society maxim and cooperate!
Common sense is subjective, and realistically if you delay enough you should fall behind those who are behind you, and the rules already cover that by making you go to a lower count.
You are also breaking PFS rules, which you do not have the right to do just like you can't(read shouldn't) change encounter tactics even if you know the group will steamroll the encounter.
Also this is the rules forum, not the advice forum. In actual games I don't make them change init either, but my player is also not doing this for several rounds at time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A, B, C, D all roll a 10 on initiative, after tiebreakers and whatnot, the final order is: A B C D
A can delay to go after B, after C, after D, or even lower in the count. If A takes his turn after B, his initiative lowers from before B to after B.
The next round B could delay until after C, lowering his initiative and making order: A C B D, still all on count 10.
The next round, another character, E, could delay and take his turn between A and C.
They can all keep delaying an acting on the same initiative for the same reason they could all keep delaying an acting in the same round: there's no finite number of initiative counts. Achilles never catches the tortoise.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The PRD does not say whether the Initiative Count includes the modifier or not, nor does it indicate whether there is a numeric tracking of the tie-breaker. I think it should. If two characters have the same d20 roll, and the same modifier, the tie break is only rolled on round 1, and not rolled every round. The two with the tied initiative then remain in the same order. If you have skipped your action and elect to go later, you should be able to slot yourself anywhere in the order, including between 2 characters that have the same initiative + modifier as each other, even when your modifier is a different number, or would have to be assigned a tie breaker number yourself.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/coreRulebook/combat.html
A, B, C, D all roll a 10 on initiative, after tiebreakers and whatnot, the final order is: A B C D
A can delay to go after B, after C, after D, or even lower in the count. If A takes his turn after B, his initiative lowers from before B to after B.
The next round B could delay until after C, lowering his initiative and making order: A C B D, still all on count 10.
The next round, another character, E, could delay and take his turn between A and C.They can all keep delaying an acting on the same initiative for the same reason they could all keep delaying an acting in the same round: there's no finite number of initiative counts. Achilles never catches the tortoise.
According to my quotes that is not what the book say unless you are saying "your post is a reasonable houserule".
It specifically calls out the initiative count/result, which is the number used to determine when you go, and it says the initiative count/result is lowered.
A, B, C, D all roll a 10 on initiative, after tiebreakers and whatnot, the final order is: A B C D
A can delay to go after B, after C, after D, or even lower in the count. If A takes his turn after B, his initiative lowers from before B to after B.
The next round B could delay until after C, lowering his initiative and making order: A C B D, still all on count 10.
The next round, another character, E, could delay and take his turn between A and C.They can all keep delaying an acting on the same initiative for the same reason they could all keep delaying an acting in the same round: there's no finite number of initiative counts. Achilles never catches the tortoise.
According to my quotes that is not what the book say unless you are saying "your post is a reasonable houserule".
It specifically calls out the initiative count/result, which is the number used to determine when you go, and it says the initiative count/result is lowered.
The count is lowered, but not necessarily incrementally. 9.999...8 is lower than 10. Fractional initiative counts are a necessary implied consequence of creatures with the same initiative result. Some 10 initiative counts are lower than other 10 initiative counts, as evidenced by a creature with a result of 10 going later than another creature with a count of 10.
Delaying one's initiative from a higher 10 to a lower 10 is still lowering one's count.