|
Has Delaying in PF2 been discussed yet?
Maybe i'm reading into it all too much but I think that the ability to Delay is being nixed.
Thewms puts on his Tin Foil Hat
Remember Delaying in PF1?
: 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).
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.
The blog makes it seem like Reactions and Readying are clumped together.
Not everybody will have a reaction they can use during combat, but you can always ready an action that allows you prepare a special action that you can take later if the conditions you specify are met. You might ready an action to attack the first orc that walks around the corner, allowing you to make a strike if that happens before your next turn.
A Reaction surely wouldn't change your initiative count; Immediate actions in PF1 didn't. If Readying and action didn't change your initiative count then there could be potential exploits of readying an action to go off right before your turn and doing more at once than normally allowed. if only there was some additional cost for doing so!
..."Edit #4: If you want to hold an action, it costs 2 actions."
If there's no changing of initiative then the Delay action would become obsolete.
This wouldn't be unheard of.
The ability to Delay was removed in D&D 5th edition. Jeremy Crawford explains why:
For a variety of reasons, we didn’t include the option to delay your turn:
Your turn involves several decisions, including where to move and what action to take. If you could delay your turn, your decision-making would possibly become slower, since you would have to consider whether you wanted to take your turn at all. Multiply that extra analysis by the number of characters and monsters in a combat, and you have the potential for many slowdowns in play.The ability to delay your turn can make initiative meaningless, as characters and monsters bounce around in the initiative order. If combatants can change their place in the initiative order at will, why use initiative at all? On top of that, changing initiative can easily turn into an unwelcome chore, especially for the DM, who might have to change the initiative list over and over during a fight.Being able to delay your turn can let you wreak havoc on the durations of spells and other effects, particularly any of them that last until your next turn. Simply by changing when your turn happens, you could change the length of certain spells. The way to guard against such abuse would be to create a set of additional rules that would limit your ability to change durations. The net effect? More complexity would be added to the game, and with more complexity, there is greater potential for slower play.
Two of our goals for combat were for it to be speedy and for initiative to matter. We didn’t want to start every combat by rolling initiative and then undermine turn order with a delay option. Moreover, we felt that toying with initiative wasn’t where the focus should be in battle. Instead, the dramatic actions of the combatants should be the focus, with turns that could happen as quickly as possible. Plus, the faster your turn ends, the sooner you get to take your next turn.
Two of our goals for combat were for it to be speedy and for initiative to matter.
Most importantly, taking your turn in Pathfinder is now filled with a wide variety of possibilities, allowing you to get the most out of your time in the spotlight, while still keeping the game moving and engaging.
Thewms offers you a Tin Foil Hat. Do you accept?
->Yes->No
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd be happy to see Delay kicked to the curb tbh, especially since players always seem to want to take part of their turn and then delay the rest of it. Readied actions are fine, delaying is not and I hope it's gone.
Consider the following: enemy E, Rogue R, flank-buddy f.
For the order: E, F, R our Rogue is happy. E shifts or strides to escape flanking, F follows, and R flanks for two sneak attacks.
For the order: E, R, F our Rogue is sad without delayed initiative. R is forced to move, then spend two actions to ready one attack for once F is in position. R will often be better off with a worse roll, and that’s a bad design with a simple fix.
Edit: apparently 5e has this issue? Seems weird.
Heck, I'm hoping there will be a serious revamp of readying - to avoid such silliness as readying a 5' step to make yourself immune to melee attacks.
The two-for-one cost of readying should help a lot.
I'd be happy to see Delay kicked to the curb tbh, especially since players always seem to want to take part of their turn and then delay the rest of it.
That's simply not how delayed actions work.
The entire point of delayed actions is to give up your higher place in initiative in order to act back-to-back with an ally. It's an important mechanic that assists in the unusual circumstance where a high initiative roll is unfavorable.
I'd be happy to see Delay kicked to the curb tbh, especially since players always seem to want to take part of their turn and then delay the rest of it. Readied actions are fine, delaying is not and I hope it's gone.
You do realize that delaying is supposed to be all or nothing, right?
The only time I have seen an issue with delaying is when a character has an ongoing effect that is measured in rounds or that causes something to happen on his turn. In the original edition of Pathfinder, such cases are resolved in whichever way is least favorable to the player. I could see not allowing a character to delay while any such effects are in play for him.
But if combat has just begun and a player says that he wants to wait and go after somebody else, I wouldn't have a problem with it.
Which slows down combat more: (A) A player who doesn't know what to do frantically searching their character sheet, hoping to find some way to use 3 actions that won't be a total waste, asking the other players "what should I do?" or (B) that player saying "I'll delay" and then knowing exactly what they want to do once they decide to take their turn?
Heck, I'm hoping there will be a serious revamp of readying - to avoid such silliness as readying a 5' step to make yourself immune to melee attacks.
The combination of "3 actions per round" and "2 actions to ready" already makes this a really crummy trade-off. At best, you're probably using 2 of your actions to cost the enemy 1 action, and they'll still get to strike you with their attack at full bonus.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Which slows down combat more: (A) A player who doesn't know what to do frantically searching their character sheet, hoping to find some way to use 3 actions that won't be a total waste, asking the other players "what should I do?" or (B) that player saying "I'll delay" and then knowing exactly what they want to do once they decide to take their turn?
Heck, I'm hoping there will be a serious revamp of readying - to avoid such silliness as readying a 5' step to make yourself immune to melee attacks.The combination of "3 actions per round" and "2 actions to ready" already makes this a really crummy trade-off. At best, you're probably using 2 of your actions to cost the enemy 1 action, and they'll still get to strike you with their attack at full bonus.
You don't think someone will try the pattern of:
PC attacks once, full bonusReady to move when enemy attacks
Enemy swings, full bonus - ready action triggers, PC moves back, attack is wasted
Enemy moves up
Enemy attacks at -5.
Seems to me that's limiting them to one attack per round, and giving them a -5 to hit as well.
@Dasrak and @David Knott, yes, I know. You can delay the whole turn or not at all. That doesn't stop players from trying it. Over and over. No matter how many times I explain it.
I just want it gone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which slows down combat more: (A) A player who doesn't know what to do frantically searching their character sheet, hoping to find some way to use 3 actions that won't be a total waste, asking the other players "what should I do?" or (B) that player saying "I'll delay" and then knowing exactly what they want to do once they decide to take their turn?
Heck, I'm hoping there will be a serious revamp of readying - to avoid such silliness as readying a 5' step to make yourself immune to melee attacks.The combination of "3 actions per round" and "2 actions to ready" already makes this a really crummy trade-off. At best, you're probably using 2 of your actions to cost the enemy 1 action, and they'll still get to strike you with their attack at full bonus.You don't think someone will try the pattern of:
PC attacks once, full bonus
Ready to move when enemy attacksEnemy swings, full bonus - ready action triggers, PC moves back, attack is wasted
Enemy moves up
Enemy attacks at -5.Seems to me that's limiting them to one attack per round, and giving them a -5 to hit as well.
I cant imagine that would work this way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd be happy to see Delay kicked to the curb tbh, especially since players always seem to want to take part of their turn and then delay the rest of it.That's simply not how delayed actions work.
The entire point of delayed actions is to give up your higher place in initiative in order to act back-to-back with an ally. It's an important mechanic that assists in the unusual circumstance where a high initiative roll is unfavorable.
I've seen it horribly abused when the entire party delays so they have the same initiative and pretty much can take their turns together in any order for the rest of the fight. Maybe you wanna let the Cleric buff you twice in a row before you attack or something! It's pretty stupid.
I'll be happy for this mechanic to go away and use the "Ready Action" system to do stuff out of turn with a real action economy cost.
I've seen it horribly abused when the entire party delays so they have the same initiative and pretty much can take their turns together in any order for the rest of the fight.
How is this an abuse? Why shouldn't you be able to give up your high initiative placement in order to act with the rest of your party? Why should a flanking-dependent character be penalized for a good initiative roll?
This is a perfectly legitimate tactic, and honestly it can speed up play when the players do it so I'm all for it!
Maybe you wanna let the Cleric buff you twice in a row before you attack or something! It's pretty stupid.
Delaying can't let you act twice in one round. There's no benefit from delaying in this particular example.
I've seen it horribly abused when the entire party delays so they have the same initiative and pretty much can take their turns together in any order for the rest of the fight.How is this an abuse? Why shouldn't you be able to give up your high initiative placement in order to act with the rest of your party? Why should a flanking-dependent character be penalized for a good initiative roll?
This is a perfectly legitimate tactic, and honestly it can speed up play when the players do it so I'm all for it!
Maybe you wanna let the Cleric buff you twice in a row before you attack or something! It's pretty stupid.Delaying can't let you act twice in one round. There's no benefit from delaying in this particular example.
Round 1!
Wizard highest, he does a thing.
Fighter goes next, he moves 30ft forward but enemies not in reach.
Cleric goes a while later after fighter. Moves and casts a buff on Fighter.
Round 2!
Wizard does second thing.
Fighter Delays so he goes right after Cleric.
Cleric Buffs again
Fighter now runs to enemies and Attacks with 2 buffs!
Round 3!
Wizard delays to be after fighter so he can fireball in his spot.
Cleric Delays so he goes at the end.
Fighter can attack again and back off.
Wizard now shoots fireball and doens't hit fighter.
-------------
Imagine the above scenario with no delay... A lot different.
Doesn't look too bad with just 2 guys, but it gets a lot sillier when it's 4-5 guys trading initiative freely. I was annoyed when in one of my games, the entire party did this so Wizard could go first to Dispel Magic a defensive buffs and then full party attacked without the enemy being able to get any kind of response in-between. Party may be giving up initiative on the first turn, but they have a huge advantage for the rest of the fight if they stick to the same initiative and switch back and forth.
I was annoyed when in one of my games, the entire party did this so Wizard could go first to Dispel Magic a defensive buffs and then full party attacked without the enemy being able to get any kind of response in-between.
How is this a problem at all? This just looks like good teamwork. More importantly, this could have happened naturally if the Wizard rolled lower on his initiative roll. Why should he be punished for a good initiative modifier/roll?
Or in the Fighter and Cleric example, why should the Fighter be punished for his high initiative roll if it's preferable for him to take turn after the Cleric does? He could have rolled low naturally and gotten the same result, why should a better modifier and dice roll yield a worse result?
I really don't get what the problem is here.
Round 1!
Wizard highest, he does a thing.
Fighter goes next, he moves 30ft forward but enemies not in reach.
Cleric goes a while later after fighter. Moves and casts a buff on Fighter.
Round 2!
Wizard does second thing.
Fighter Delays so he goes right after Cleric.
Cleric Buffs again
Fighter now runs to enemies and Attacks with 2 buffs!
Round 3!
Wizard delays to be after fighter so he can fireball in his spot.
Cleric Delays so he goes at the end.
Fighter can attack again and back off.
Wizard now shoots fireball and doens't hit fighter.
-------------
Imagine the above scenario with no delay... A lot different.
Doesn't look too bad with just 2 guys, but it gets a lot sillier when it's 4-5 guys trading initiative freely. I was annoyed when in one of my games, the entire party did this so Wizard could go first to Dispel Magic a defensive buffs and then full party attacked without the enemy being able to get any kind of response in-between. Party may be giving up initiative on the first turn, but they have a huge advantage for the rest of the fight if they stick to the same initiative and switch back and forth.
That does sound like a problematic situation, but the Delay action is not the problem in that case. The actual problem is allowing players an unlimited amount of OOC communication to coordinate tactics. The sentence "Wait until I dispel his magical defenses!" takes about 2 seconds to say, so that's already a significant chunk of how much time is available for tactical coordination in one round.
If you enforce that tactical communication must fit within a ~6s time budget each round, it sounds like that will solve most of the problem. And if the party really is able to efficiently cooperate, I think that should be rewarded, not removed completely as an option.
That does sound like a problematic situation, but the Delay action is not the problem in that case. The actual problem is allowing players an unlimited amount of OOC communication to coordinate tactics. The sentence "Wait until I dispel his magical defenses!" takes about 2 seconds to say, so that's already a significant chunk of how much time is available for tactical coordination in one round.If you enforce that tactical communication must fit within a ~6s time budget each round, it sounds like that will solve most of the problem. And if the party really is able to efficiently cooperate, I think that should be rewarded, not removed completely as an option.
Have been trying to promote more IC talking for tactics, but it's rough. Don't think there's a solution that won't leave people sad at "nerfing" the mighty tactical optimization of delay. Is it not a problem in other's games? I don't wanna just ban OOC talk x_X though the game would be a lot better of it didn't take 5 minutes of planning per move.
I do like how 5e forces you to go straight to the action no matter what.
Plus, delaying is all-or-nothing. So if the wizard used part of his turn to say that then he would be ineligible for Delay. Messy!
Might as well just have team initiative if battles are gonna devolve to both sides wanting to act together for optimized tactics anyways. Also prevents things like "I stun the enemy who is closest to getting their next turn" kinda stuff. OOC knowledge can go a long way in subtle ways...
EDIT: As for the dispel scenario. It might be cooler if they had to total defense or try something on their turn to buy time rather than always getting the most benefical order of operations.
Have been trying to promote more IC talking for tactics, but it's rough. Don't think there's a solution that won't leave people sad at "nerfing" the mighty tactical optimization of delay. Is it not a problem in other's games? I don't wanna just ban OOC talk x_X though the game would be a lot better of it didn't take 5 minutes of planning per move.
I have played campaigns where all combat tactical discussion must be in-character. (Actually, I'm the one that lobbied for that rule, and thankfully my GM agreed to implement it!) I think it improves the gaming experience.
The one needle you need to thread is with new players - you want them to be able to learn the game effectively by asking for tactical advice. But you don't want to let them get steamrolled by other people trying to play their character for them by offering unsolicited advice about the "best thing" to do. But in my group people were understanding when we had the "no OOC coordination" rule in place, then just look the other way when the newbie is soliciting advice, but the GM steps in to shut down the "chess player" who is offering unsolicited advice.
BUT, if you are all experienced players, I say try out the "no OOC coordination" rule. I don't think you'll look back.
Have been trying to promote more IC talking for tactics, but it's rough. Don't think there's a solution that won't leave people sad at "nerfing" the mighty tactical optimization of delay. Is it not a problem in other's games? I don't wanna just ban OOC talk x_X though the game would be a lot better of it didn't take 5 minutes of planning per move.I have played campaigns where all combat tactical discussion must be in-character. (Actually, I'm the one that lobbied for that rule, and thankfully my GM agreed to implement it!) I think it improves the gaming experience.
The one needle you need to thread is with new players - you want them to be able to learn the game effectively by asking for tactical advice. But you don't want to let them get steamrolled by other people trying to play their character for them by offering unsolicited advice about the "best thing" to do. But in my group people were understanding when we had the "no OOC coordination" rule in place, then just look the other way when the newbie is soliciting advice, but the GM steps in to shut down the "chess player" who is offering unsolicited advice.
BUT, if you are all experienced players, I say try out the "no OOC coordination" rule. I don't think you'll look back.
I was going to do this, but then some players left and we ended up with at least 1 newcomer in all 5 of my groups at the same time. So decided to "delay" the enforcement until they get good ^_^;; haha....
I was going to do this, but then some players left and we ended up with at least 1 newcomer in all 5 of my groups at the same time. So decided to "delay" the enforcement until they get good ^_^;; haha....Have been trying to promote more IC talking for tactics, but it's rough. Don't think there's a solution that won't leave people sad at "nerfing" the mighty tactical optimization of delay. Is it not a problem in other's games? I don't wanna just ban OOC talk x_X though the game would be a lot better of it didn't take 5 minutes of planning per move.I have played campaigns where all combat tactical discussion must be in-character. (Actually, I'm the one that lobbied for that rule, and thankfully my GM agreed to implement it!) I think it improves the gaming experience.
The one needle you need to thread is with new players - you want them to be able to learn the game effectively by asking for tactical advice. But you don't want to let them get steamrolled by other people trying to play their character for them by offering unsolicited advice about the "best thing" to do. But in my group people were understanding when we had the "no OOC coordination" rule in place, then just look the other way when the newbie is soliciting advice, but the GM steps in to shut down the "chess player" who is offering unsolicited advice.
BUT, if you are all experienced players, I say try out the "no OOC coordination" rule. I don't think you'll look back.
Honestly having newbies was the reason I pushed for the rule in the first place. I was tired of seeing the newbies get pushed around, with other players basically taking their turns for them. I don't know if other people see this at their table, but we often had one or two "chess players" who always lobby their hardest that everyone make the most optimal tactical move, even deriding someone if they make a "bad move", and it was damaging the game experience to the point that I suggested the "no OOC coordination" rule to my GM, who latched onto it.
When the newbie actively solicits advice, we always looked the other way on the "no OOC coordination" rule. But having the rule in place gave the GM a more diplomatic option than shouting "NO METAGAMING!" and slapping someone's hand with a ruler.
Honestly having newbies was the reason I pushed for the rule in the first place. I was tired of seeing the newbies get pushed around, with other players basically taking their turns for them. I don't know if other people see this at their table, but we often had one or two "chess players" who always lobby their hardest that everyone make the most optimal tactical move, even deriding someone if they make a "bad move", and it was damaging the game experience to the...I was going to do this, but then some players left and we ended up with at least 1 newcomer in all 5 of my groups at the same time. So decided to "delay" the enforcement until they get good ^_^;; haha....Have been trying to promote more IC talking for tactics, but it's rough. Don't think there's a solution that won't leave people sad at "nerfing" the mighty tactical optimization of delay. Is it not a problem in other's games? I don't wanna just ban OOC talk x_X though the game would be a lot better of it didn't take 5 minutes of planning per move.I have played campaigns where all combat tactical discussion must be in-character. (Actually, I'm the one that lobbied for that rule, and thankfully my GM agreed to implement it!) I think it improves the gaming experience.
The one needle you need to thread is with new players - you want them to be able to learn the game effectively by asking for tactical advice. But you don't want to let them get steamrolled by other people trying to play their character for them by offering unsolicited advice about the "best thing" to do. But in my group people were understanding when we had the "no OOC coordination" rule in place, then just look the other way when the newbie is soliciting advice, but the GM steps in to shut down the "chess player" who is offering unsolicited advice.
BUT, if you are all experienced players, I say try out the "no OOC coordination" rule. I don't think you'll look back.
I'll try this now! Let them make their own decisions unless they specifically ask! Thanks! It's a bit tougher on roll20, but players are nice enough to cooperate I think <3.
The "Have the veteran play my turn for me" must really suck! Have seen it happen pretty often but dunno how it feels. Should be more fun this way.