Delay action and the good of the game

[Phntm888]

If you have a problem with your players' use of the Delay action in-play, please believe me when I tell you that the best solution is to talk with your players about it. Find out WHY they keep delaying, and what changes you can make that will improve the game for everyone. It really is your best course of action.

[Squiggit]

Zapp wrote:

Did you by any chance read WotC's rationale (quoted above)?

Yeah, I just didn't find it particularly compelling.

[Captain Morgan]

And again, ready is so much better in 5e. Like, I don't see anything from stoping a fighter from launching all 3 attacks as a readied action.

[Mathmuse]

Megistone wrote:

Zapp wrote:

As I'm running an official AP (Extinction Curse) the "standoff" idea (where enemies talk, retreat or both) doesn't really work.

One room might have a Moderate encounter. The room behind it (maybe not even 60 ft away) might have a Severe encounter.

If the characters can't contain fights to their "assigned" rooms, things quickly spiral out of control.

If the characters talk, the enemies in the second room have time to come forward to reinforce the first room. If the enemies retreat, they automatically reinforce the second room.

PF2 is not a game where twice the enemies mean double the difficulty - it means quadruple the difficulty! The game isn't meant to handle more than Extreme encounters, and indeed, the AP doesn't even feature Extreme encounters at all so far.

To me it's clear that PF2 is a game where each room offers a self-contained battle that's supposed to start a.s.a.p. and end so quickly (most fights are over in 24 seconds or less) that other monsters simply don't react, even when fairly close by.

I'm guessing all of you touting this idea run home-made scenarios.

Well, there are many ways to handle the thing, even in an official module.

First, the second group will probably take a little time to arrive. It depends on the distance, but unless it's really close and already fully prepared for battle, the party will have at least three rounds to act, probably more. You said that most combats are over in four rounds or less, so the effect is that in most cases you are just chaining two encounters, not joining them together.

Second, even if the two enemy groups actually join forces, the party should be able to realize that they are now in a dire situation and that they'd better retreat.
Now, what happens? A chase? Creative tactics are employed to split the enemies again? The PCs find a chokepoint to make a stand without suffering too much for being outnumbered? Any of that is good, IMO, sometimes even better than the straight fight where it was originally planned. It makes the dungeon feel alive, and adds variety to the adventure.

If this is the same situation that in Advice on pacing: specific example (Spoilers for Extinction Curse part 1, chapter 3), then I would take advantage of the second group in the next room to end the standoff.

An NPC opponent would yell, "I will fetch reinforcements! You stall these do-gooders as long as possible!" and then run out a back door. I see two wise responses from the party:
(1) Defeat the opponents in the same room before the reinforcements arrive. They are temporarily short one person, so strike while they are weak.
(2) Retreat immediately.
If the party keeps stalling themselves with Delay actions, then they foolishly play straight into the plans of the enemy.

This is an advanced GMing technique. But my players know how to take advantage of the openings I give them. I could use it to reshape Moderate 80-xp encounter followed by a Serious 120-xp encounter into a Low 40-xp encounter, followed by a Moderate 80-xp encounter (the reinforcements arriving too late), and a Moderate 80-xp encounter (the people of the Serious encounter that remained in place).

My players are accustomed to the denizens of a dungeon adjusing their strategy in response to the PCs' actions. They would be disappointed if I didn't give them a living dungeon. However, they have adopted strategies to influence the response in their favor. The example of luring away guard that I described above in comment #16 was one of those strategies. The first room had only the two guards. When the second guard was lured away, he first went to the next room and recruited two other warriors to stand guard in his place. Thus, my player's plan turned a 40-xp encounter and a 70-xp encounter into two 20-xp encounters, followed by a 40-xp encounter and a 30-xp encounter. They had feared that the encounters would be twice as hard, so they used a divide-and-conquer strategy to avoid a 140-xp encounter. I might bump up that 30-xp threat NPC at the end to a higher threat just to make them think that their strategy was the best plan.

Pathfinder is a cooperative game between the players and GM. I give them challenges worthy of their characters. When they prefer solving the challenges by cleverness rather than power, I cooperate.

[Salamileg]

Captain Morgan wrote:

And again, ready is so much better in 5e. Like, I don't see anything from stoping a fighter from launching all 3 attacks as a readied action.

Extra Attack specifies that it only works when you take the attack action on your turn, so only one attack when readied.

[Captain Morgan]

Salamileg wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

And again, ready is so much better in 5e. Like, I don't see anything from stoping a fighter from launching all 3 attacks as a readied action.

Extra Attack specifies that it only works when you take the attack action on your turn, so only one attack when readied.

Eh. Still better than the PF1 version for relative costs.

[Staffan Johansson]

Captain Morgan wrote:

I think part of why 5e can get away with not having delay is because Readying an Action in 5e is soooo much stronger than PF2. In 5e, you can still use your move and bonus action, cast a full spell at any specified trigger, or even throw out multiple attacks. In PF2, you basically give up doing anything of note on your turn and only get one action for it. No spells, no two action feats, nothing. You even still have MAP if you're other action was an attack

It's already been brought up that 5e Ready only gets you one attack, not multiples. But there are two things that also make it worse for casters:

1. If you are readying a spell, you are actually casting it but focusing on holding it for later. That means the spell slot gets expended regardless of whether the triggering condition happens.

2. Readying a spell requires concentration, which means both that you can't have any other spells requiring concentration up (which basically means any buff, debuff, or zone), and if you get hit before you have the chance of casting the spell you might lose it.

[dirtypool]

Zapp wrote:

Did you by any chance read WotC's rationale (quoted above)?

Yeah, did you happen to read the multiple people who questioned how and why a 5e design decision is relevant in a decision about a completely different game (also above)?

[Queaux]

The only problem I have with delay is that there isn't any way to resolve who goes first in the situation where 2 creatures have the opportunity to leave delay at the same time. Does one creature have to decide first? If both decide to leave delay, is there a way to resolve which goes first?

[gnoams]

Queaux wrote:

The only problem I have with delay is that there isn't any way to resolve who goes first in the situation where 2 creatures have the opportunity to leave delay at the same time. Does one creature have to decide first? If both decide to leave delay, is there a way to resolve which goes first?

I've been playing so long that sometimes I can't recall if something is just a houserule we've always used or if it's actually in the rules somewhere, but it goes off initiative modifier, just like breaking any other tie in the initiative.

[Zapp]

dirtypool wrote:

Zapp wrote:

Did you by any chance read WotC's rationale (quoted above)?

Yeah, did you happen to read the multiple people who questioned how and why a 5e design decision is relevant in a decision about a completely different game (also above)?

Yes, except those people just assumed the lack of relevance without bothering to actually justify it, making me inclined to skip their arguments.

Maybe you'd like to, I dunno, actually engage with the arguments - if you can explain why and how those objections aren't valid in the context of PF2, as opposed to, like, just dismissing them out of hand, that would make your posts much more interesting than those other ones.

Thank you

[graystone]

Zapp wrote:

Yes, except those people just assumed the lack of relevance without bothering to actually justify it, making me inclined to skip their arguments.

If you're inclined to skip our arguments because you assumed they lack relevance, then I know I'm inclined to skip all of your arguments also... And where does that get us?

As to "explain why and how those objections aren't valid"... Why? You already said you aren't listening... Are you the only one that gets to dismiss things out of hand?

Zapp wrote:

without bothering to actually justify it

As I don't see where you've been able to articulate a reason I should care what 5E does or how it in any way relates to PF2 design, I'm unsure why I'm the one that should be justifying anything. You're the one with something to prove and so far I'm not buying what you're putting down and I don't have to justify why. I'm not sure why you'd expect everyone to care what a comment from another game is when the games has functional differences in design and expectation that make those comment clearly tailored to that other game. How those devs want 5E to work and flow and how PF2 works and flows are two different things and IMO you've failed to connect the two in any meaningful way.

So it really does boils down to 'why should I care how a 5e dev want their game to work' when there isn't any correlation made between the systems. There are good reasons why I don't play 5e and one is basic game play mechanics so an appeal to the better judgement of their devs is quite lacking on it's face as a convincing argument on relevance.

[Queaux]

gnoams wrote:

Queaux wrote:

The only problem I have with delay is that there isn't any way to resolve who goes first in the situation where 2 creatures have the opportunity to leave delay at the same time. Does one creature have to decide first? If both decide to leave delay, is there a way to resolve which goes first?

I've been playing so long that sometimes I can't recall if something is just a houserule we've always used or if it's actually in the rules somewhere, but it goes off initiative modifier, just like breaking any other tie in the initiative.

As I mentioned upthread, I also have a house rule for it. I have the creatures with lower initiative decide whether they want to go off hold first and the creature with higher initiative decide in which order they activate if both creatures leave hold simultaneously.

Most of my players are wargamers and magic players, so we're comfortable with that sort of complex stack. Still, I'd rather a rule be written in the book for the situation.

[Zapp]

graystone wrote:

stuff

No, Graystone, it all boils down to not just taking game elements at face value.

Question it. Argue for it. Consider the upside as well as the downside. Don't just take game elements for granted, even for a game you like. What does it add? What does it cost?

You don't have to answer precisely the WotC points; that was just offered as a good starting point.

But if all you want is argue why you shouldn't have to discuss Delay at all, why are you even in the thread? Just go play the game you so uncritically love.

Best wishes,
Zapp

[Phntm888]

Okay, here's a cost-benefit analysis of Delay:

Benefits: choose where you go in Initiative; group up the party so you can all act at once, in the order they want to act.

Costs: You can't take a reaction if you delay, potentially leaving the casters vulnerable to deadly or disabling attacks, like grapple; the enemy can pelt you with ranged attacks, spells, or a breath weapon, especially AoE abilities that hit the entire party; the enemy could attack you with Spring attacks (Stride, Strike, Stride) with no deterrance; the enemies can also group up in Initiative so they can all act at once; an enemy can run to get reinforcements while the PCs sit there; persistent damage or other negative effects that would occur at the start or end of your turn occur when you take the Delay action, on your original Initiative count, and you can take no actions to stop them; any beneficial effects that would end on your turn end when you use the Delay action.

So, to be clear, there are two benefits to delaying to group the party together, and seven drawbacks to delaying to group the party together.

Based on this analysis, it seems to me that more often than not, it's more detrimental to delay unless there is a specific reason to, such as delaying so the Bard can use Inspire Courage, or so the Wizard can Fireball the enemies. Otherwise, the party is ceding first action to the enemies, and the PCs have no way to prevent them from doing whatever they want.

So, it seems to me that there are plenty of costs to using Delay. Most are not tangible costs, however - they rely on the GM to take advantage of the opening afforded to them, and play the enemies smartly. If you want to take the GM out of the equation, then these are the drawbacks:

You can't take a reaction if you delay, potentially leaving the casters vulnerable to deadly or disabling attacks, like grapple; persistent damage or other negative effects that would occur at the start or end of your turn occur when you take the Delay action, on your original Initiative count, and you can take no actions to stop them; any beneficial effects that would end on your turn end when you use the Delay action.

Those are three pretty big drawbacks, in my mind.

[Zapp]

Phntm888 wrote:

Okay, here's a cost-benefit analysis of Delay:

Thank you, but that's a cost-benefit analysis from the player's point of view: "should I use Delay or not?"

I'm talking about the cost-benefit analysis from the game design point of view. Questions like

* does the game become better by having Delay in it?
* what are things it enables PCs to do?
* are there any drawbacks, such as making the game more complex, or ask the players to make too many decisions?
* are benefits worth the costs?
* should maybe Delay exist but have a cost it currently doesn't have?

Regards,
Zapp

[WatersLethe]

Flagging for moving to homebrew

[Squiggit]

Zapp wrote:

Just go play the game you so uncritically love.

Yep. That's graystone alright. Never criticizes anything about Pathfinder ever.

[graystone]

Zapp wrote:

graystone wrote:

stuff

No, Graystone, it all boils down to not just taking game elements at face value.

I agree... You aren't taking people saying they don't see an issue at face value.

Zapp wrote:

Question it.

Does it work for me? Yes, yes it does. Do I have any issues with it? No No I don't... Ok, done.

Zapp wrote:

Argue for it.

I works fine. Ok, done.

Zapp wrote:

Consider the upside as well as the downside.

I don't really see the downside so this is a quick activity.

Zapp wrote:

Don't just take game elements for granted, even for a game you like. What does it add? What does it cost?

I DO take it for granted as I have no interest in changing something that's working as intended. What does it add? That's pretty self explanatory, it adds Delay. What does it cost? Exactly what it says it does.. I'm not seeing an issue here.

Zapp wrote:

You don't have to answer precisely the WotC points; that was just offered as a good starting point.

I think it backfired spectacularly: It became something to debate about other than your main question.

* does the game become better by having Delay in it?: yes
* what are things it enables PCs to do?: delay your actions
* are there any drawbacks, such as making the game more complex, or ask the players to make too many decisions?: the game is built with an expected complexity level. IMO, this doesn't change that expectation in the least. If Delay throws them, having a class that gives you 33 spells you have to make choices with in combat is surely enough to make their head explode.
* are benefits worth the costs?: Yes, not losing your actions is good and well worth not having reactions and bunching up things like persistent damage.
* should maybe Delay exist but have a cost it currently doesn't have?: irrelevant IMO. It's already here.If the question is should we invent something new as a houserule/homebrew change, I'd say no. IMO, if you're doing that it the change has to be worth the effort in changing it and IMO this doesn't make the cut as far as a cost/benefit analysis. IMO, we're in the wrong place for such debates anyway as this isn't the homebrew section.

Zapp wrote:

But if all you want is argue why you shouldn't have to discuss Delay at all, why are you even in the thread? Just go play the game you so uncritically love.

When you quote and present something in a thread, it becomes fodder for discussion and debate: I'm afraid YOU made it about something other than the main topic and altered it into 5E vs PF2 design expectations and you got replies reflecting that. The moral of the story is if you don't want people to go off into the weeds, don't put up big signposts pointing them in that direction. :P

[Phntm888]

Questions from the game design POV? Okay, then. I'll start by defining the word Tactics, then examine this from the viewpoint of your specific questions.

Oxford English Dictionary wrote:

Tactic (noun) Plural Tactics
1. an action or strategy carefully planned to achieve a specific end.

Now, it's important to remember, in examining these questions, that Pathfinder is designed to be played as a tactical game. The use of a battlemap and miniatures/pawns/other tokens to represent all participants in an encounter is both highly encouraged and commonplace.

So, looking at your questions:

1. Does the game become better by having Delay in it?
We'll come back to this one, because the answer is linked with the answers to the others.

2. What are things it enables PCs to do?
It enables PCs acting in Initiative order to choose when in the combat round they go, if they roll high enough to go before any of the other participants, typically after another participant has acted. It brings an additional level of tactics to the game, allowing participants to attempt to find more advantageous conditions for their/their party's actions.

3. Are there any drawbacks, such as making the game more complex, or asking the players to make too many decisions?
It makes the game no more complex than any of the other decisions made, such as having 25 basic actions, 44 conditions, or the myriad Traits to feats, spells, equipment, and most other aspects of the game, such as "Flourish", "Human", "Agile", etc.

As for asking the players to make too many decisions, if the GM stops to ask the delaying player after each other participant's turn if they would like to take their turn, then that could result in a slight slowdown in the process of the encounter, as the player weighs the events of the previous participant's turn and how they effect the actions the player would like to take. This is a drawback of the presence of the Delay action.

4. Are the benefits worth the costs?
While most players seem to prefer that Encounters be quicker as opposed to longer, I suspect that if you polled them, most would also say they were okay with a small increase in the combat time if it allowed them to employ a beneficial tactic such as Delay.

5. Should maybe Delay exist but have a cost it currently doesn't have?
Yes, Delay should exist, but it should not have any additional cost. The loss of reactions, the continued taking of persistent damage, ongoing negative effects, and the end of beneficial effects at the original Initiative count is a sufficient cost. Further, unless the antagonists of a combat encounter are mindless, of animal intelligence, or crazed berserk fanatics, the GM should feel free to play them tactically, as well, to account for player tactics. This helps the world feel more real and consistent.

So, returning to the first question: Does the game become better by having Delay in it? The answer is that the game becomes more tactical by having delay in it. Whether or not that makes the game better is subjective.

D&D has roots in miniature wargaming - in the original system, characters' speed was measured in how many inches they could move during a round on an encounter map. Miniature wargaming is very tactical, and that legacy is a part of D&D. D&D 3.X/PF1 were very tactical, in both character creation and round-by-round combat. However, the presence of so many feats and magic items to bolster both basic statistics and the attacks/save DCs derived from those statistics meant that you could basically "double dip" and boost your bonuses to the point where you could not be hit/could not fail/could end a fight with one spell and turned high level play into either "whoever wins Initiative wins the fight in Round 1" or "this fight will be three rounds in-game but take 5 hours to play through."

Both D&D 5E and PF2 took different approaches to address this problem. Both reduced the number of math boosters available (especially from feats), but D&D 5E also went for a more simplistic, streamlined ruleset. Magic items are given solely at the purview of the GM. Combat was still tactical, but there were fewer choices in each round of combat of what you could do. Each player has an action, a move, a reaction and a bonus action. Some classes (like Rogue) give extra options for your bonus action. You can always move your speed during combat in 5E, because you always have a move action that can only be used to move.

PF2 took a different approach. They embraced the highly tactical aspect of combat, and instead of specifying what each action was, said, "You have three actions per round and a reaction. Here are all the things you can do with them, and this is how many actions each takes." So, you can take three Strides, three Strikes, mix and match, Cast a Spell (2 actions) then Stride, or Draw a Weapon (Manipulate), Stride, then Strike. You can make two attacks, then use Assurance (Athletics) to try and trip your opponent without suffering the MAP. You could instead start your turn with a Demoralize, then make two Strikes after the opponent has their AC lowered by the Frightened condition. Instead, your ally could Demoralize the enemy, allowing you to take advantage of it.

PF2 is a more complex, tactical game than 5E. When viewed through that lens, Delay makes a good deal of sense as a tactical option. It is one of 25 basic tools in your toolbox, and you can add additional tools through choice of Ancestry, Class, and Skills.

[Sapient]

Zapp wrote:

Phntm888 wrote:

Okay, here's a cost-benefit analysis of Delay:

Thank you, but that's a cost-benefit analysis from the player's point of view: "should I use Delay or not?"

I'm talking about the cost-benefit analysis from the game design point of view. Questions like

* does the game become better by having Delay in it?
* what are things it enables PCs to do?
* are there any drawbacks, such as making the game more complex, or ask the players to make too many decisions?
* are benefits worth the costs?
* should maybe Delay exist but have a cost it currently doesn't have?

Regards,
Zapp

Their post directly discusses the cost to characters when using the Delay action, which is the topic that dominates your first post and forms the basis of your complaint.

I'll just join in with just about everyone else in saying that Delay is not without cost, it makes the game better and more interesting, and a GM should be adjusting the tactics of enemies based on the tactics of the characters.

That said, you don't have to agree. If you feel the rules, and the way your players use them, makes things less enjoyable for you, talk to them. Have a table meeting.

[Unicore]

The number one thing that delay does for pf2 is allow the player and the GM to start each character's turn with the question: Do I know what I want my character to do in this situation, and is it possible now? And if it is not, they have an action to take, Delay, that does not slow the game down nearly as much as: You have to go now, you have no great actions to take, find something else to do and make everyone else wait until you do.

If you delay, and the situation never develops that you hoped for, you might have basically wasted your own turn, but you haven't brought the entire game to a standstill while you did so.

With PF2 having such robust tactical flexibility built into the system, taking away the option to wait feels like it would be much more detrimental to the game because the whole table has to wait for the indecisive player, rather than being able to say, after a minute of uncertainty, "it seems like you aren't ready to act, your character can delay." Getting skipped for a whole round is pretty brutal. Being told you have to wait until the next creature in the turn order goes because you couldn't decide might still help incentivize you to make up a plan, but it also reminds you that it is ok to be patient and in the future you can be more quick to say, "I delay" when you realize your character doesn't have 3 actions that you are excited about doing at that moment.

[graystone]

Squiggit wrote:

Zapp wrote:

Just go play the game you so uncritically love.

Yep. That's graystone alright. Never criticizes anything about Pathfinder ever.

WOW I missed that. That is sure a unique take on my posting record. This deserves my bookmarking this so I never lose it. ;)

For Zapp, want to talk about bulk? All the DM fiat in the game? You'll quickly see my "love" for those parts of the game.

[Joana]

Zapp wrote:

* does the game become better by having Delay in it?

Yes.

Zapp wrote:

* what are things it enables PCs to do?

*say to an ally, "Wait, before you charge in, let me cast a spell on you!"

*say to an ally, "Heal me, then I'll run in and hold it off!"
*conserve limited daily resources: "I'll see if the fighter can finish it off this round; if he can't, I'll go ahead and cast my last magic missile, but after that we'll have to find a safe place to rest."
*hold the door for your allies to escape and then close it before the enemy follows
*wait to see if the wizard can charm a guard before resorting to violence
*wait until an enemy passes your hiding place and turns a corner before running away/following them to pen them in
*wait until the wizard has cast fireball before approaching the enemy
*wait until the fighter has withdrawn from melee, then cast wall of force to cover the party's retreat before the enemy follows

... this is literally off the top of my head in five minutes. I can come up with more.

Zapp wrote:

* are there any drawbacks, such as making the game more complex, or ask the players to make too many decisions?

No. I have played the game with the Delay action for twenty years and have never had a problem with people dragging out a decision whether to delay or not.

Zapp wrote:

* are benefits worth the costs?

Yes, because I haven't seen any costs.

Zapp wrote:

* should maybe Delay exist but have a cost it currently doesn't have?

No.

[Salamileg]

gnoams wrote:

Queaux wrote:

The only problem I have with delay is that there isn't any way to resolve who goes first in the situation where 2 creatures have the opportunity to leave delay at the same time. Does one creature have to decide first? If both decide to leave delay, is there a way to resolve which goes first?

I've been playing so long that sometimes I can't recall if something is just a houserule we've always used or if it's actually in the rules somewhere, but it goes off initiative modifier, just like breaking any other tie in the initiative.

In PF2, the RAW for initiative ties is monsters go before players, and tied characters on the same "side" (be it monsters or players) decide who goes first in initiative.

[Queaux]

Salamileg wrote:

gnoams wrote:

Queaux wrote:

The only problem I have with delay is that there isn't any way to resolve who goes first in the situation where 2 creatures have the opportunity to leave delay at the same time. Does one creature have to decide first? If both decide to leave delay, is there a way to resolve which goes first?

I've been playing so long that sometimes I can't recall if something is just a houserule we've always used or if it's actually in the rules somewhere, but it goes off initiative modifier, just like breaking any other tie in the initiative.

In PF2, the RAW for initiative ties is monsters go before players, and tied characters on the same "side" (be it monsters or players) decide who goes first in initiative.

Thanks, that makes it so that if some monsters decide to end delay at the same time as players, they would act before the players. That seems clear enough, and it makes it so that deciding to leave delay in a particular order isn't needed outside of PVP. I appreciate the clarification.

I found the rules reference at the bottom of the roll for initiative step to confirm that's how it works:

https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=430

The initiative rule applying to delay is still up in the air, but it's a very narrow gap in the rules if it does exist. I'm fine with not even calling it a house rule at this point.

[Kennethray]

Wow, I had just went by the whomever delayed first would be the first to be allowed to come out of delay. Basically keeping the original initiative order.

[beowulf99]

I usually just don't have a monster delay to avoid any "timing" issues between a delaying hero and enemy. If two players are both delaying, then they get to decide who goes first when they want their turn to happen.

If they can't decide for whatever reason, then I would also probably default to using initiative to decide it. It makes the most sense.

[Loreguard]

WatersLethe wrote:

Flagging for moving to homebrew

I respectfully disagree with that.

Within scope of the original question was concerns about the use and/or abuse of Delay within the game and its purpose. While if it degrades to just a 'reasons to remove delay from the game, I see why it could get sent to homebrew, but I have to say that I've picked up several items in the discussion with respect to the importance of if the players know everyone (especially all the monster's initiatives) at the start of the encounter, this changes what Delay does for the players significantly.

That discussion seems completely valid.

And jumping into that discussion.
The reasons that 5th edition chose not to include it are perfectly valid arguments, as given, even within the scope of this other Game, Pathfinder 2nd edition. It was concerns that a similar, but non-identical mechanic in a similar, but notably different game. I really thing people need to, on both sides, stop discounting arguments, just because they aren't argued like they would argue it. There is some to be learned from much of it.

I think Delay is good for the game. I agree with the others in that it is an action that has costs to the one making the action, but in certain circumstances provide the actor an option that will be advantageous if things go the right way.

As mentioned, that is analysis from the standpoint of the players.

From the game standpoint.

Initiative, and having a high initiative is supposed to be an advantage and good thing in almost all circumstances. Forcing people to act in the predetermined random order without flexibility seems to cut that importance of initiative and 'combat instinct' that initiative is supposed to represent. If you get rid of that you are hurting the purpose of investing in initiative.

Some are concerned that the action creates complexity, however I think it is well worth it. As mentioned you need to have a method of resolving who gets to go first when two individuals try to renter play at the same time. That is a complexity, but isn’t super complex.

Also pointed out was that knowing everyone’s initiative at the start makes the delay action more useful, reducing much of the risks associated with its use. I think the specifics of how initiative is revealed is not without some flexibility. Granted, listing yourself to a method of initiate reveal without it being known from the start might add a little complexity, and reduce some options, but seems completely functional and within normal expected play.

Adding delay, but leaving the the risk the delay may enable an opponent to go before them is probably an expected risk/cost associated with the choice to delay.

Edit: sorry premature post will update

[dirtypool]

Zapp wrote:

Maybe you'd like to, I dunno, actually engage with the arguments - if you can explain why and how those objections aren't valid in the context of PF2

They are irrelevant because PF2 is not 5e, nor was PF2 developed by the developers of 5e. 5e’s developers decided Delay did not work for their game. PF2’s developers decided that it did work for theirs. The one teams thinking is inherently irrelevant to the others. Your inclusion of it brought no value to the conversation.

“Zapp” wrote:

Just go play the game you so uncritically love

While we’re on the subject of intent: why don’t you stop trying to rewrite the game that so clearly doesn’t suit your needs and go find one that does? You keep praising 5e’s design, why not play that instead?

[Sam Phelan]

The discussion is getting a bit heated here, and we need to take a step back and not tell folks what they can and can't play nor what they can and can't enjoy. When someone gives you their opinion on any system or rule, it is not your prerogative to change that opinion. You can take note of opinions that differ from yours, consider this always as a valid opinion that they are allowed to have, and know that it doesn't have to impact your game, preferences, or make your own perspective on the rules or system any less valid. When you ask for opinions, you are going to receive ones from all across the board. Don't allow these varied contributions to lead to frustration, and if it is, it may be time to step away from the discussion.

[John Milligan 87]

dirtypool wrote:

Zapp wrote:

Maybe you'd like to, I dunno, actually engage with the arguments - if you can explain why and how those objections aren't valid in the context of PF2

They are irrelevant because PF2 is not 5e, nor was PF2 developed by the developers of 5e. 5e’s developers decided Delay did not work for their game. PF2’s developers decided that it did work for theirs. The one teams thinking is inherently irrelevant to the others. Your inclusion of it brought no value to the conversation.

“Zapp” wrote:

Just go play the game you so uncritically love

While we’re on the subject of intent: why don’t you stop trying to rewrite the game that so clearly doesn’t suit your needs and go find one that does? You keep praising 5e’s design, why not play that instead?

I have no dog in this, but you and others saying this, are so clearly fallacious. Address the actual argument presented, stating the “developers decided X works for their game” is a non starter. If they didn’t, short of outright editing errors, it wouldn’t be in the game.

Saying the games have different philosophies or focuses, doesn’t make these very much overlapping design decisions irrelevant, it just led to a different outcome. If it’s not relevant, you need to justify why.

[Cyouni]

John Milligan 87 wrote:

I have no dog in this, but you and others saying this, are so clearly fallacious. Address the actual argument presented, stating the “developers decided X works for their game” is a non starter. If they didn’t, short of outright editing errors, it wouldn’t be in the game.

Saying the games have different philosophies or focuses, doesn’t make these very much overlapping design decisions irrelevant, it just led to a different outcome. If it’s not relevant, you need to justify why.

It's about as relevant as asking "why doesn't Pathfinder use advantage for everything like 5e".

[dirtypool]

John Milligan 87 wrote:

Saying the games have different philosophies or focuses, doesn’t make these very much overlapping design decisions irrelevant, it just led to a different outcome. If it’s not relevant, you need to justify why.

Let’s see if I follow your logic:

Zapp, in a vacuum, posted the 5e Devs quotes about why they didn’t included Delay. I, and others, asked him to justify why their design decisions about their game were relevant to the conversation about this game. He ignored everyone who asked that question. Dozens of posts later he pointed someone toward the 5e quotes as if they had proved something, when again all he had done is post them without context. I asked him if he had noted that several people asked him to speak to the relevance. Rather than answer the question he turned the tables and demanded that I speak to their irrelevance.

If Zapp is not required to justify the relevance of an argument he made, why am I then required to justify the opposite?

What more justification is needed for to explain why a series of quotes about not including “delay” in 5e aren’t relevant to a conversation about the version of delay that exists in PF2?

[graystone]

Cyouni wrote:

John Milligan 87 wrote:

I have no dog in this, but you and others saying this, are so clearly fallacious. Address the actual argument presented, stating the “developers decided X works for their game” is a non starter. If they didn’t, short of outright editing errors, it wouldn’t be in the game.

Saying the games have different philosophies or focuses, doesn’t make these very much overlapping design decisions irrelevant, it just led to a different outcome. If it’s not relevant, you need to justify why.

It's about as relevant as asking "why doesn't Pathfinder use advantage for everything like 5e".

Or "why doesn't pathfinder use THACO! Please justify why!' or 'Why doesn't pathfinder use d100's like rolemaster! The creators of that game said that that roll is clearly superior to d20's so how do we fix this in pathfinder?'... Asking it this way presumes that the parties in questing already agree there is a problem instead of just asking if you like or dislike something. Asking 'do you like blue' is different than saying "blue is awful! If you don't agree justify why you like it': IMO I don't have to justify why I like or dislike something. It'd be different is this started off as a homebrew change like 'how can I change this in my game' instead of what it is now. :P

[John Milligan 87]

graystone wrote:

Cyouni wrote:

John Milligan 87 wrote:

I have no dog in this, but you and others saying this, are so clearly fallacious. Address the actual argument presented, stating the “developers decided X works for their game” is a non starter. If they didn’t, short of outright editing errors, it wouldn’t be in the game.

Saying the games have different philosophies or focuses, doesn’t make these very much overlapping design decisions irrelevant, it just led to a different outcome. If it’s not relevant, you need to justify why.

It's about as relevant as asking "why doesn't Pathfinder use advantage for everything like 5e".

Or "why doesn't pathfinder use THACO! Please justify why!' or 'Why doesn't pathfinder use d100's like rolemaster! The creators of that game said that that roll is clearly superior to d20's so how do we fix this in pathfinder?'... Asking it this way presumes that the parties in questing already agree there is a problem instead of just asking if you like or dislike something. Asking 'do you like blue' is different than saying "blue is awful! If you don't agree justify why you like it': IMO I don't have to justify why I like or dislike something. It'd be different is this started off as a homebrew change like 'how can I change this in my game' instead of what it is now. :P

Stop misrepresenting the scenario. It wasn’t in a vacuum, it’s comparing two rule sets that have a lot of similarities, about arguably the exact same design decision. You could remove all references to 5e and the points, they would stand or fall on their own merit, but you are not actually addressing them.

[Joana]

I think the answer to any question of 'why is the rule the way it is and not this other way they could have done it?' is because that's the way they liked it. I'm not sure what other answer there could be.

5e's rule is great for 5e. Pathfinder's rule is what Paizo wanted. If you want to pick and choose ways to do things from a multitude of games at your personal gaming table, go ahead, have fun, good gaming.

But there's no point in saying, "Why didn't you make a chocolate cake instead of a vanilla one? This other person made a chocolate cake, and it was really good." The only answer is, "Well, because I like vanilla cake better, and it's my cake that I chose to make the way I like it."

Clearly, if Paizo thought 5e's Delay was better, they could have made a rule more like 5e's. They didn't, because they like the 3.x Delay better. Other people may disagree. What else is there to say?

[dirtypool]

John Milligan 87 wrote:

Stop misrepresenting the scenario. It wasn’t in a vacuum

Several posts into a thread about Delay, it’s usage at his table and his thoughts on fixing it he posted a single post that began “I should copy/paste this” smacked down the 5e devs reasons for not including delay in their game and then said “compelling arguments”

There was no conversation about 5e prior to that post. It came from out of nowhere. Why do we in this thread have to address the 5e developers thoughts about 5e? This thread is about PF2. The guy who brought it up needs to address it. I don’t.

“John Milligan 87” wrote:

it’s comparing two rule sets that have a lot of similarities, about arguably the exact same design decision.

They’re two completely different design decisions. One was the decision to not include the Delay action, the other was to include it. Further there is not comparison there it was just “here’s their explanation of why they didn’t do the thing that Paizo did do. Compelling”

“John Milligan 87” wrote:

You could remove all references to 5e and the points, they would stand or fall on their own merit, but you are not actually addressing them.

First, I don’t need to address them. Secondly, they absolutely do not stand on their own merit, without the references to 5e they just would be white room theorizing about why an element of this game should be removed to make it into a different game. Which is fine, in the house rules forum. But these are NEVER posted in the house rules forum.

[graystone]

John Milligan 87 wrote:

Stop misrepresenting the scenario.

Pot, meet kettle...

John Milligan 87 wrote:

it’s comparing two rule sets that have a lot of similarities, about arguably the exact same design decision.

Note the bolded word in the quote. It seems MOST of us here don't buy into the argument that they DO use the same design decisions.

John Milligan 87 wrote:

You could remove all references to 5e and the points, they would stand or fall on their own merit, but you are not actually addressing them.

And I covered that: delay works just fine as is and is working as intended. What is there to justify? What do I have to prove? As I said above, how do I prove and justify that I like blue? The OP jumped over steps in an argument:

The scientific method has five basic steps, plus one feedback step:
#1 Make an observation.
#2 Ask a question.
#3 Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation.
#4 Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
#5 Test the prediction.
Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions.

The OP took steps #1-#4 by himself and wanted others to agree: we just made it it #1 and stopped there as we came to a different conclusion [things working fine] instead of his [things not working fine] then answered #2 [yes, no issue here]. As the person with a theory, they have to justify the observation, question, the testable explanation and the prediction. If the people you ask don't agree to the premise of any of those, it's a non-starter. If my observation is that the world is a sphere, I have no obligation to justify why it isn't flat: I can SEE it's sphere and don't have to write out a long post why it looks round...

[Gorbacz]

If delay was to be removed/adjusted, it would take a revision of the Core Rulebook, which is not going to happen. So, at this point in the development cycle, this is purely housrule/homebrew discussion.

[John Milligan 87]

graystone wrote:

John Milligan 87 wrote:

Stop misrepresenting the scenario.

Pot, meet kettle...

John Milligan 87 wrote:

it’s comparing two rule sets that have a lot of similarities, about arguably the exact same design decision.

Note the bolded word in the quote. It seems MOST of us here don't buy into the argument that they DO use the same design decisions.

John Milligan 87 wrote:

You could remove all references to 5e and the points, they would stand or fall on their own merit, but you are not actually addressing them.

And I covered that: delay works just fine as is and is working as intended. What is there to justify? What do I have to prove? As I said above, how do I prove and justify that I like blue? The OP jumped over steps in an argument:

The scientific method has five basic steps, plus one feedback step:
#1 Make an observation.
#2 Ask a question.
#3 Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation.
#4 Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
#5 Test the prediction.
Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions.

The OP took steps #1-#4 by himself and wanted others to agree: we just made it it #1 and stopped there as we came to a different conclusion [things working fine] instead of his [things not working fine] then answered #2 [yes, no issue here]. As the person with a theory, they have to justify the observation, question, the testable explanation and the prediction. If the people you ask don't agree to the premise of any of those, it's a non-starter. If my observation is that the world is a sphere, I have no obligation to justify why it isn't flat: I can SEE it's sphere and don't have to write out a long post why it looks round...

You are completely misrepresenting once again what occurred. He presented some criticisms, you dismissed these criticisms because he referenced 5e.

It’s fine to state you have no problems with the system as it stands, but that on its own doesn’t address the points he raised. You of course are not obligated to address his criticism, it’s fine to simply like it how it is. However, without doing so, you are contributing nothing to the conversation of said critique. Does that really need to be explained?

Also, to rephrase for clarity, it is the same design problem, the outcome was however obviously is different.

[Porridge]

Just to be clear about what’s being asked for (because I’m genuinely confused). Is there anything being asked for that wasn’t addressed by, say, Phntm888’s thoughtful and comprehensive post here?

My impression was that Phntm888 answered the question. And given their replies, it seems like pretty much everyone agrees with this answer.

[Unicore]

I think this thread really should be more of an advice thread because it seems like the underlying question for some folks is more about how to handle parties who learn just how much tactical flexibility the delay action adds to potential combat effectiveness and how much to utilize the same tactics with NPCs and monsters.

Some people feel like the easiest answer is to remove delay from the game to prevent PCs from doing this, but that is not a consequence-free decision either. And a lot of parties are going to feel like the GM is essentially fighting to take away options from them, especially if it is happening in response to the PCs learning the system and how to be more effective as a team.

Underlying all of this is how much do you as a GM want the narrative of play to be defined by how you feel your characters should chose to act, or how much you want the narrative to be defined by the characters learning to fight together as a team.

Personally, I feel like crunch heavy games like pathfinder requires a GM to let game really take control of the story because too much is tied to mechanical elements to pretend like PF2 is just a cooperative storytelling engine. There are much more narrative focused systems for wanting to just play out the most interesting story to retell.

Now of course, no one should be playing any game that isn't fun for themselves and everyone else they are playing with, but if you are the GM and finding that the party is really enjoying using the delay tactic to put together smart battle plans, you might want to ask yourself why that is interfering so much in your own ability to have fun?

[Zapp]

Gorbacz wrote:

If delay was to be removed/adjusted, it would take a revision of the Core Rulebook, which is not going to happen. So, at this point in the development cycle, this is purely housrule/homebrew discussion.

Yeah, no.

Luckily it's not up to you whether criticism against the RAW gets shunted to homebrew.

[WatersLethe]

Zapp wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

If delay was to be removed/adjusted, it would take a revision of the Core Rulebook, which is not going to happen. So, at this point in the development cycle, this is purely housrule/homebrew discussion.

Yeah, no.

Luckily it's not up to you whether criticism against the RAW gets shunted to homebrew.

You seem to be under the impression that the homebrew forum isn't good enough for you.

In this thread you've presupposed that Delay is a problem and ignored posts saying the opposite and began brainstorming modifications to the rules to satisfy your problems with Delay. It was at that point this became a homebrew thread.

[TSRodriguez]

I think delay works well.
It has benefits (Tactical advantage) and drawbacks (Lost of Initiative)
The game would be worse without it

Is this an opinion thread? To say it's bad, or it's good (You are collecting opinions)
Or this is an adjusting rule thread (You want to change the rule)

Is it's the first... then is just banter, if it's the second, then yeah. its homebrew stuff

[graystone]

John Milligan 87 wrote:

You are completely misrepresenting once again what occurred. He presented some criticisms, you dismissed these criticisms because he referenced 5e.

You got the order wrong.

#1 I disagreed with his premise.
#2 I dismissed him as it didn't apply to me.
#3 he posted 5e manifesto on delay.
#4 I posted what I actively disagreed on [it works fine and 5e doesn't matter].

John Milligan 87 wrote:

It’s fine to state you have no problems with the system as it stands, but that on its own doesn’t address the points he raised.

The OP asked "What are you opinions?" SO I indeed addressed his points raised. I gave my opinion that things worked fine.

John Milligan 87 wrote:

You of course are not obligated to address his criticism, it’s fine to simply like it how it is. However, without doing so, you are contributing nothing to the conversation of said critique. Does that really need to be explained?

Sure I am. The OP asked "What do you feel about this?" I'm SPECIFICALLY answering the question posed. If it's working fine and there isn't any prospect of it changing officially, what is the point of debate outside homebrew?

John Milligan 87 wrote:

Also, to rephrase for clarity, it is the same design problem, the outcome was however obviously is different.

I'm completely not getting what you mean here. If this is some point about PF2 vs 5E, just don't. I looked at the OP's first post and don't agree with the basic basis in the least: everything is good as far as I'm concerned. I'm not dismissing just because of the 5e post, it was the cherry on top.