Exactly. And Step 2 happens when you re-enter initiative order, and so you complete the rest of your turn.However even if you are correct this sentence is very much killing this suggested course of action: "Essentially, you can’t Delay to avoid negative consequences that would happen on your turn or to extend beneficial effects that would end on your turn."
So if you delay within a round the negative effects would be applied once in this round, and once in the next round, when you start your next turn.
If however you delay from this round into the next round (and before you forfeit your actions), the GM is advised to apply the negative effects once in the first round and once again in the next round, no matter how often you act or how your turns are split, simply by the "no shenanigans" rule section.
I agree with you that if I let the players "Delay" into the next round, I will apply the negative effects even when they act (if they act in the next round). I will not re-trigger them if they re-enter initiative order in the same round. In this way you preserve the correct duration of the effect.
Simply I think that not let "Delay" into the next round is a more simple and elegant solution to obtain this.
I'd rather add an entry in the initiative table (like: "Tom's Frightened condition ticks down" at initiative count 12, while Tom has delayed to count 3 or maybe into the next 'round', acting at count 19) than put a nonsensical limit to the players' actions.
I'd rather add an entry in the initiative table (like: "Tom's Frightened condition ticks down" at initiative count 12, while Tom has delayed to count 3 or maybe into the next 'round', acting at count 19) than put a nonsensical limit to the players' actions.
That's exactly how I play it too. Bookkeeping sounds bad, but isn't actually in my experience as the circumstance is pretty rare - folk in practice don't often delay when they're under negative effects as the opportunity cost is more likely not to be worth the tactical benefit. System working as intended.
I'd rather add an entry in the initiative table (like: "Tom's Frightened condition ticks down" at initiative count 12, while Tom has delayed to count 3 or maybe into the next 'round', acting at count 19) than put a nonsensical limit to the players' actions.
It is not a nonsensical limit to the players' actions. It simply is a different abstraction of the round structure. And many games implement a similar abstraction.
You can prefer one or the other, but why call it nonsensical?
...
Example:Just as example, assume that you have a negative effect on you with duration of 30 seconds (5 rounds). There are 8 partecipant in combat. You are last in initiative order.
Round 1: you "Delay". You don't do any other action or activity in this round, you just trigger the effects. (4 rounds of negative effect remain)
Round 2: you re-enter initiative as 7th and complete your turn. You don't retrigger the negative effects.
Round 3: you "Delay". You don't do any other action or activity in this round, you just trigger the effects. (3 rounds of negative effect remain)
Round 4: you re-enter initiative as 6th and complete your turn. You don't retrigger the negative effects.
Round 5: you "Delay". You don't do any other action or activity in this round, you just trigger the effects. (2 rounds of negative effect remain)
Round 6: you re-enter initiative as 5th and complete your turn. You don't retrigger the negative effects.
Round 7: you "Delay". You don't do any other action or activity in this round, you just trigger the effects. (1 rounds of negative effect remain)
Round 8: you re-enter initiative as 4th and complete your turn. You don't retrigger the negative effects.
Round 9: the negative effect triggers and ends.The negative effect should have a duration about 30 seconds and end at round 5, its duration was of about 54 seconds instead and ended at round 9. This is not as the durations are intended, I think.
This example is the way I will run it on my tables. Yes, you nearly doubled the duration of an effect. But at what cost?
Half the time you just stood there doing nothing.
For me, that's okay, is working with my reading of RAW, and doesn't upset balance. Yes, it extends the duration of effects, but I can let that slide, the trade-off seems okay for me.
While we are at this, is there a rule or recommendation how to return to the initiative track when two or more parties are delaying?
For example if we have the following initiative track:
1) Cleric
2) Monster
3) Fighter
The cleric does not want to go first because he wants to see how things play out and may want to drop a defensive spell or heal later this round. So the cleric delays.
The monster does not want to act either because it has a couple of close range, multi-action attacks and hopes that the fighter will stride to close the distance. So the monster delays.
The fighter strides, strikes and raises his shield. His turn ends.
Now both parties have the opportunity to decide if they want to come back and act, but who announces and/or acts when, especially in case of conflict, i.e. both want to be the first or last to act after the fighter has completed his turn?
If the cleric acts first he could e.g. drop a high level Darkness on the fighter, making monster retaliation difficult. If the monster acts first it may attack without impediments.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd go with the general rule regarding Ini ties:
If your result is tied with a foe’s result, the adversary goes first. If your result is tied with another PC’s, you can decide between yourselves who goes first when you reach that place in the initiative order.
While we are at this, is there a rule or recommendation how to return to the initiative track when two or more parties are delaying?
For example if we have the following initiative track:
1) Cleric
2) Monster
3) FighterThe cleric does not want to go first because he wants to see how things play out and may want to drop a defensive spell or heal later this round. So the cleric delays.
The monster does not want to act either because it has a couple of close range, multi-action attacks and hopes that the fighter will stride to close the distance. So the monster delays.
The fighter strides, strikes and raises his shield. His turn ends.
Now both parties have the opportunity to decide if they want to come back and act, but who announces and/or acts when, especially in case of conflict, i.e. both want to be the first or last to act after the fighter has completed his turn?
If the cleric acts first he could e.g. drop a high level Darkness on the fighter, making monster retaliation difficult. If the monster acts first it may attack without impediments.
I will probably let the combatants choose if re-enter initiative in original initiative order: first ask to the Cleric if he want to re-enter. If so, the Monster can't re-enter yet (thematically the Cleric has still the advantage of the higher initiative result, and reacts faster that the monster). If the Cleric don't re-enter, the Monster can decide if re-enter.
I'd rather add an entry in the initiative table (like: "Tom's Frightened condition ticks down" at initiative count 12, while Tom has delayed to count 3 or maybe into the next 'round', acting at count 19) than put a nonsensical limit to the players' actions.It is not a nonsensical limit to the players' actions. It simply is a different abstraction of the round structure. And many games implement a similar abstraction.
You can prefer one or the other, but why call it nonsensical?
There is no in-game explanation for that, that's why I call it nonsensical. The 'end of a round' as the moment where the initiative count resest is a concept that is completely out-of-game.
You have A, B and C acting in this order.
A could delay to act after B and before C, B could do the same and act after C and before A, but C absolutely can't: it either acts now, or they miss a whole round. Why can't it just wait for a little bit, and must do it in 6 seconds increments only, while the others can instead?
I'd rather add an entry in the initiative table (like: "Tom's Frightened condition ticks down" at initiative count 12, while Tom has delayed to count 3 or maybe into the next 'round', acting at count 19) than put a nonsensical limit to the players' actions.It is not a nonsensical limit to the players' actions. It simply is a different abstraction of the round structure. And many games implement a similar abstraction.
You can prefer one or the other, but why call it nonsensical?
There is no in-game explanation for that, that's why I call it nonsensical. The 'end of a round' as the moment where the initiative count resest is a concept that is completely out-of-game.
You have A, B and C acting in this order.
A could delay to act after B and before C, B could do the same and act after C and before A, but C absolutely can't: it either acts now, or they miss a whole round. Why can't it just wait for a little bit, and must do it in 6 seconds increments only, while the others can instead?
C can't delay because is last in initiative order. This is a disadvantage to be low in initiative order. If A "Delay" after C, then C can "Delay" in subsequent rounds.
Whit this abstraction, a round is just a self-contained amount of time (6 seconds in this case) in which you partition the continuous flux of action, and the iniziative just determine in which order the actions happen in this 6 seconds. If you have high initiative, you have the possibility to wait for the right moment to strike, if you have low initiative, you have lesser control on when you act (but you can't use this advantage repeatedly, because using it you will lower your initiative, giving eventually this advantage back to your foe). You resolve this 6 seconds completely, before proceed to the next 6 seconds.
Many excellent RPGs use a similar concept.
That sort of barrier that separates one round from another is still something that's entirely out of game; one could try to find an in-game reason to justify it, but that would always feel forced.
And why do that when you have another interpretation of the rules that doesn't require such artifices, and actually makes sense in-game too?
Well, every group ultimately playes the way they like.
By the way, can you give me an example of an RPG that separates rounds in a similar way, but also gives players an option to choose - to an extent - the moment when they act?
I went and read how Shadowrun handles it. I didn't understand everything, but it seems interesting.
With such rules, having strictly separated rounds is of course a necessity, and it doesn't feel as bad as it does with a different system that only rolls initiative at the beginning of combat, like PF.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you Delay an entire round without returning to the initiative order, the actions from the Delayed turn are lost, your initiative doesn’t change, and your next turn occurs at your original position in the initiative order.This part [...] is why I assume 2e won't let you delay past the end of the round [...].
The "your next turn occurs at your ORIGINAL position" seems unneeded if already Delaying all the way to your original position was possible. You'd already BE there, why would the rule need to tell you when your next turn occurs?
This is telling you, that you can't skip past your original Initiative position in the next round, thus avoiding any negative effects forever, or prolonging any positive effects indefinetly.
It is there to prevent people from Delaying and never re-entering the Initiative.
Maybe. Except that the Delay rules already handle triggering effects as soon as you Delay.
Once, yes.
You wait for the right moment to act. The rest of your turn doesn’t happen yet. Instead, you’re removed from the initiative order. You can return to the initiative order as a free action triggered by the end of any other creature’s turn. This permanently changes your initiative to the new position. You can’t use reactions until you return to the initiative order.
If you Delay an entire round without returning to the initiative order, the actions from the Delayed turn are lost, your initiative doesn’t change, and your next turn occurs at your original position in the initiative order.When you Delay, any persistent damage or other negative effects that normally occur at the start or end of your turn occur immediately when you use the Delay action. Any beneficial effects that would end at any point during your turn also end. The GM might determine that other effects end when you Delay as well. Essentially, you can’t Delay to avoid negative consequences that would happen on your turn or to extend beneficial effects that would end on your turn.
Without that struck out sentence, the Delay rules don't tell you that you have to return to Initiative. You suffer the effects once when you declare you Delay. You are taken out of initiative. You can reenter after any other creature's turn, but you wouldn't have to.
But if so, it ought to say "If you Delay YOUR entire round" rather than "an entire round." Of course, if you can't Delay past the last-to-act, it ought to say something like "If you Delay to the last position this round". Or just add "note that you can't Delay past the last position in this round - you must re-enter initiative then or before, otherwise you return to your original position next round."...
*shrugs* language isn't precise.
Yes, there is that definition of "A round", but it isn't really used for anything, IIRC.There is also the definition for durations of effects measured in rounds, and that is used very widely (spells, afflictions, and such), and that would work here nicely as well.