Delay action and the good of the game


Rules Discussion

1 to 50 of 104 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

tl;dr: Are you aware of any discussion that questions or analyses the Delay action (or at least doesn't take it for granted)? Thank you

---

As written the Delay action is much more powerful than simply "I wait until the orc comes through the door then I shoot him with my crossbow".

It doesn't require any physical triggers such as seeing a new combatant. It allows precise and exact initiative management down to the accuracy of each and every combatant's turn (i.e. the player gets multiple decision points, not just one, and doesn't need to commit beforehand). There is no cost other than the lower Initiative.

What do you feel about this? I'm especially asking those of you who doesn't come to Pathfinder 2 from PF1 or 3.x. (For instance, 5E doesn't have Delay at all)

Myself, I'm finding that initiative handling becomes a chore (players manipulate their initiative nearly every fight, and sometimes even more than once in the same fight; not including how initiative changes when you're downed) and that the game devolves into perfect SWAT like tactics.

There simply isn't much of a cost to
a) making sure monsters have to move first "let them come to us, rather than us moving to them"
and
b) acting after the fighter on point
and
c) making sure we all act together, so to always present a "broad" front of several characters (so monsters are less likely to focus their fire on a sole hero)

Especially with the combat system of Pathfinder 2, do you find that these tactics far outweigh the advantage of rolling high on initiative, and thus acting first. (I'm chiefly talking martial characters now - obviously a spellcaster that can mess with the enemies from afar can and will still go first)

I find that with analytical minmaxing gamers, the lack of a cost to Delay, its incredible precision and unerring accuracy, and that the possibility exists at all, strongly works against classic fantasy gaming where the Half-Orc Barbarian is overjoyed at rolling high on Initiative and jumps into the fray as soon as he can.

Usages such as "I wait until the orc comes through the door then I shoot him with my crossbow" are perfectly fine, but probably could be handled through (the much more expensive and restricted) Ready action.

I find myself longing for a game that simply doesn't have Delay; and where if you don't want to rush ahead, you're simply asked to pass on your turn, and act the next turn instead.

What are you opinions? Again, I'm mostly interested in those of you who see my point in full or in part, those of you who see both problems and solutions with Delay.

Any reasoned analysis of why Delay should be there, needs to be there, and why it can't have a cost would be appreciated. Especially opinions from people that - at least theoretically - could see themselves still playing the game without Delay would be interesting. What would the game lose if Delay was, maybe not removed, but at least curtailed?

Zapp

PS. I tried searching for relevant discussion. Of course "delay" and "action" aren't exactly search-friendly. I found this sub-discussion deep in the Cleric thread: https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42y5j&page=2?The-Unfortunate-Necessity-of- the-Cleric#58


I guess my main beef is that I find "my" monsters (I'm the GM) stand at a considerable disadvantage unless I myself start utilizing "initiative tactics".

But the second I have my monsters hold back, the game becomes noticeably less "heroic". Less action move, more a game of "modern" tactics.

Not to speak of how unfortunate it will be when neither side advances, reducing the game to hide and seek or ranged attrition.

I mean, I can negate much of the advantages the heroes have noticed, if my monsters also Delay. And then what's gained?

Example:

20 Hero A
18 Monster A
16 Monster B
14 Hero B

Hero A wants to delay until after Monster B, both because it forces the monsters to spend actions on movement, and because it allows the heroes to act together.

But what if I say that my monsters would like to act after one hero, squeezing in between the two?

This situation can only be resolved a few ways, none good. Basically they all end up with everybody just playing a game of Chicken and the action comes to a stand-still, which is exactly opposite of what you'd want out of a game of heroic fantasy.

I'm not sure how to handle the situation.

Maybe if Delay at least cost an action there'd be
a) a real cost that players had to pay upfront
b) a strong incentive for my monsters generally not to mess about with "sophisticated" tactics like Delay
...while remaining much more useful than Ready (which is decidedly impopular since a single action disqualifies most of the cool stuff characters can do, including spells)


I'm envisioning a simpler cleaner game.

Say the heroes start on a line to the right. The monsters start on a line to the left.

Even if the Barbarian acts first to charge the lead monster, the other monsters really aren't waiting to start running until the Barbarian has acted. Instead they start running towards their own foe - running past the Barbarian (instead of swamping him).

You'd get the effect of two front lines violently crashing together, with no "clumps" around individual foes.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, you can't really use delay as a way to set up an ambush, as you can't trigger it without a creature ending their turn.

If as a GM you feel that your players are abusing Delay, punish them for it. Have a creature poke their head through a door, then back out when they see the fighter with bow "ready" to shoot. Make them come to you instead. Play with readied actions (the proper method for "ambushing" a creature) and punish players who should have by all accounts gone "first".

It's not that big of a deal in my mind for players to reorder their turns. After all, if you are waiting for an ally to do something, you aren't going to waste time in waiting: You are simply going to wait for them to do whatever it is you were waiting on, then act.

The issue is complicated a bit by what a "round" represents. Each creature doesn't have a 6 second turn, Everyone has a 6 second turn, happening roughly simultaneously. Initiative is simply a construct that allows us to judge who would get the "drop" on who by starting an action first.

So no, I really don't have an issue with Delay. It can feel "gamey" at times I suppose, but then again we are playing a game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I haven't had much trouble with it, but I try to have encounters with a mix of enemy threat ranges and terrain. Players quickly realize it's better to take their turn when waiting and seeing involves taking a couple of javelin to the face as they stand in the open.


Malk_Content wrote:
I haven't had much trouble with it, but I try to have encounters with a mix of enemy threat ranges and terrain. Players quickly realize it's better to take their turn when waiting and seeing involves taking a couple of javelin to the face as they stand in the open.

The problem is that it's actually better to wait and coordinate in this, and the majority of situations. It's also better for the enemy, and there's no way to resolve what happens if more than one side of a conflict delays.

I completely agree that delay should at least have a priority built in. I think the player with the creature with the highest initiative before the delay should get the advantage. I think the advantage should be that they decide last whether they want to stop their delay after every initiative step, and they get to act in whatever order they want among those ending their delay at that initiative step. Further, I'd make delay a once per turn action. I think that should right the problem of the rules dispute and still make initiative valuable. It doesn't solve the tracking problem, though.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Depends on the situation. Already sitting happily out of sight, sure delay. Enemy can see you and have superior range/ranged output? You have to move up, ideally from cover to cover.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I should probably copypaste this in - it's the official 5E devs reasoning why they deliberately did not include Delay in 5th Edition Dungeons & Dragons:

Can you delay your turn and take it later in the round? Nope. When it’s your turn, either you do something or you don’t. If you don’t want to do anything, consider taking the Dodge action so that you’ll, at least, have some extra protection. If you want to wait to act in response to something, take the Ready action, which lets you take part of your turn later.

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.

https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/sage-advice/rules-answers-august-2015
I must say, all of these arguments seem compelling /Zapp


Though I can't say much about the possible abuse of the delay action (we figured it out pretty early, but no one is actively abusing it) our group of Fighter (melee), Ranger (ranged first, melee if he must), Warpriest (ranged first, melee if he must) and Wizard (ranged) also found that rolling high on initiative isn't always a benefit. In case of the low level gameplay we faced in our AP so far and primarily fighting adversaries that seem to be geared for melee it very often was no benefit at all!

Unless you need to drop a vital buff or want to AoE enemies that might still be sufficiently grouped (so spellcasting mostly), what is the benefit of our Fighter (or any melee) rolling high on initiative? Have him charge in, wasting actions on movement and probably getting surrounded? Most of the time we simply found it a lot better to let our enemy waste their actions on movement, enabling much easier counter-attacks and allowing for easier spell targeting due to shorter ranges (e.g. placement of cones or usage of 30 feet cantrips).

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

There is one huge advantage of winning initiative and charging in.

You protect the backline squishies (if there are any).

Yes, I realize that this is much less the case than PF1 due to both the fact that fewer characters are as squishy AND due to the fact that opponents can often just move past the front liner.

However, it still is fairly effective. Many GMs have the monster (quite reasonably) attack the guy hitting them in the face with his pointy stick rather than attacking the back line, even if from a pure gaming perspective ignoring him and moving may make more mathematical sense. And there are still AoOs. And moving costs an action or two.

Plus (at least at the lower levels) a good hitter may well be able to take down an enemy in one shot.

Obviously, it depends on the situation and characters. A warpriest probably shouldn't waddle into combat at speed 20, a barbarian sudden charging can make a LOT of sense


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zapp wrote:
Can you delay your turn and take it later in the round? Nope. When it’s your turn, either you do something or you don’t. If you don’t want to do anything, consider taking the Dodge action so that you’ll, at least, have some extra protection. If you want to wait to act in response to something, take the Ready action, which lets you take part of your turn later.

The problem is, that not all early actions are equal.

A wizard longing to throw a fireball at suitably grouped enemies desperatedly wants to go first and is rewarded for rolling high on initiative.

A barbarian that needs to move 2 times until in order to strike once is probably not rewarded for a high initiative as his move will surly bring him very close to the enemy ranks (depending on the nature of his opponents of course).

A cleric would also rather go last if he sees a group of enemy melee undead approaching as he can probably negate some of the damage done on top of dealing damage in one application of a 3-action heal.

So what do we tell our barbarian friend? Sorry, you rolled high, now you can either dodge or exchange your 3-action turn for 1 readied action?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Even with delaying rolling high gives you the choice, which is an advantage. Sometimes you will want to move part way towards the enemy, to take cover or secure a bottle neck. Rolling low doesn't give you that choice.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel for you, Zapp because I've experienced everything you've mentioned way back in my first 3.0 campaign. It puzzled me how much other players (IRL & on forums) invested into gaining initiative bonuses when Delay was so common. Then realized it wasn't common because battles were lopsided, especially in PFS. Of course you can run up alone...and who needs Haste when you can kill in 1-2 rounds?

So now we're in PF2, which does an excellent job at challenging PCs (I'd had to use CR+2 as my average encounter) and we see a return of Delay. Some of my players in Chapter One of the PF2 playtest learned the importance of Delay the hard way. Yep, you might not want to be the only target out there or give that boss a full round of offense.

I do not like 5E's answer, not at all. There's little reward for a high initiative, and the reasoning frankly sounds whiny.
"We'd have to track changes."
I guess in a pickup game w/ strangers this coordination might be burdensome, but in a lengthy campaign too?

I'm loving the return of tactics, though maybe I'd been spoiled by my Warhammer players in the first batch. Yet a majority of my home groups developed similar ones. (It was awkward coming over to PFS, painful at times!) Which is to say, Delay had been a problem because of all the reasons you cited. Here were my solutions:
1. Table talk was in character as a default (w/ exceptions, like to me or if working with a new player).
2. Delay shifted you down at least one pip in the initiative order.
3. You can't talk until your turn.
4. Calling out initiative numbers.

1. Tactics alter when the enemies can hear them. Healers want to pay attention so PCs don't have to draw attention by crying for help. In-character talk helped vs. Delay since there's now no conductor(s) giving advice from an omniscient POV, placing everybody in their optimal position. Of course, default tactics developed (like Delay for Haste or a small AoE buff) and there were some codewords or straight up requests for flanking or other aid, yet that felt natural. Those tactics ran smoothly and increased the fun.
And this also led to more RPing during combats. :)

2. This made the biggest difference. Having six players (+NPCs) all congregating & shuffling on the split second before their main enemy was a ridiculous level of precision, especially coupled with several Readied actions within that sliver. So the simple "If you Delay at initiative 15, you're at least moving down to 14." solved most of that. Part of the implementation also had if you waited until Player X was done, you went one pip after them, sometimes putting you behind the monster that shared player X's initiative. Eventually Delaying runs afoul of the monster's initiative, making it difficult to abuse.

3. This rule was more in place to prevent guards from shouting an alarm automatically, yet it helped against Delay because players couldn't inform others "I'm last" or "Wait for X". Players were rewarded for developing a sense of their cohorts tactics and abilities, as well as ya' know, planning.

4. This table practice came years later when PFS groups were taking too long to determine initiative order. I simply start calling out initiative numbers, ticking down until a player pipes up or I get to one of my monsters. Nobody knows the initiative order until it unfolds.
Even when we do set up initiative order beforehand I often refrain from putting the monsters in until their turn arises. Can't Delay to "Right before enemy" so it's a risk to wait (though still often worthwhile).

Note: My monsters had the same limits, so players would often hear tactical shouts, even if in an unknown language. This made leaders stand out, making themselves targets since the players knew enemy tactics would suffer if they took out the boss.

Re: Readied actions
Casters can't make much use of them in PF2 (sadly) yet I think martials still can since they can Ready their first attack action (or even Flurry or whatnot). Raise shield/Hunt Prey/enter Stance/Rage or whatever then Ready attack for first enemy to engage. Sounds like a good defensive start. A reach Fighter w/ Combat Reflexes can get two swings on the first guy coming in if they make sure to set a different trigger.

Sovereign Court

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Zapp wrote:

What are you opinions? Again, I'm mostly interested in those of you who see my point in full or in part, those of you who see both problems and solutions with Delay.

Any reasoned analysis of why Delay should be there, needs to be there, and why it can't have a cost would be appreciated. Especially opinions from people that - at least theoretically - could see themselves still playing the game without Delay would be interesting. What would the game lose if Delay was, maybe not removed, but at least curtailed?

There are a couple of potential problems with Delay, but I don't think they're quite the ones you have in mind.

What I would consider bad would be if the party rolls well in initiative, delays, waits for the first enemy to close in, then all comes out of delay, surrounds that enemy and destroys it. The "first guy into the room is dead" syndrome.

But clearly, that's not a situation where initiative isn't valuable; you can only do this if everyone is rolling well in initiative.

I don't think the CRB spells out the order in which people come out of delay competitively; in PF1 it was that if two people both wanted to come out of delay, the one who'd gone into it the earliest would win. So higher initiative means you can trump another delayer's lower initiative.

So suppose you get a battle of delays, where the enemies all delay and the players all delay, because the first one to close in is going to get surrounded and beaten. Now if the players had all won initiative, then there isn't really anything the enemies can do about that. But if it's more interleaved, then when the players start trying to come out of delay to surround the first enemy, the enemies also start coming out of delay and reinforcing their guy. So once again, you actually all need to be good at initiative to do this tactic. And considering how enemy initiative scores scale in PF2, that's mostly going to be a matter of luck.

---

I think you have an underlying problem because you think that the first one to close to melee is at a big disadvantage. I think the advantages and disadvantages are more finely tuned.

Suppose it takes an enemy two Strides to close in, then he's got one action left for a Strike. And the PC who was waiting then gets three actions to respond. Not great for the enemy.

But suppose it takes only one Stride. Then the first one to close in gets a first and second Strike. Because monsters have pretty good to-hit, there's a good chance those will hit. Then the PC responds with three actions, but the third one is usually not as strong because of MAP. Then they trade blows for a few rounds.

Now suppose they start with about the same HP, AC, To Hit and damage. Then the one who starts hitting first is on average the first to reduce the enemy to 0HP and win. So while the monster had a slight disadvantage in having only two actions to attack in the first round, the player had a bigger disadvantage of always lagging behind the monster in dealing damage.

---

I also think that prohibiting Delays isn't going to fix this underlying feeling that closing to melee first is bad. Suppose that MAP isn't such an issue because people have really good actions to use their third action on. Perhaps a fighter with Double Slice and a really good shield that he wants to Raise. But he's not allowed to Delay. The monster is on the other side of the room and eyeing him, wondering when he's going to close in. But the fighter just stands there, Raises his shield and spends the next two actions picking his nose. He hasn't used the Delay action that you hate, but what's the difference? In one case, the monster could have closed in on him and only afterwards would he have gotten a turn. And in the other case... the same thing! Actually, delaying is worse for the fighter because while delaying the fighter can't use Reactions, so he can't Shield Block or take AoOs.

Read that again. While in Delay, you can't use Reactions. Delay is already curtailed.

If the fighter delays, then the monster can walk past him, unafraid of AoOs, and mess up the wizard.

Now, what if this was my fighter? My fighter has a wizard dedication so he's got cantrips. You don't need empty hands for the somatic components, so they actually work very nicely to give someone with their hands full of shields and swords a good ranged option. If the monster is a melee brute on the other side of the field, I'm not going towards it. I just raise my shield and fire a Ray of Frost. If the monster thinks "the first one to go into melee loses" and stays there, then I shoot him again the next round. And again and again.

There is no stalemate. If the monster keeps delaying, I'm just going to kill it at a distance. My character build strategy forces the monster to either respond with a ranged attack, or to flee, or to close in.

Now suppose the monster responds with a better ranged attack. Well, I guess then I have to close in, and hope I'm better in melee than it.

Or suppose that the monster doesn't actually have to close into melee, because actually it wants to get away and get reinforcements. Now I have to chase after the monster.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Zapp wrote:
I should probably copypaste this in - it's the official 5E devs reasoning why they deliberately did not include Delay in 5th Edition Dungeons & Dragons:

I'm not sure what value there is in quoting the design logic about a different games choice to not use something that Paizo decided to continue to use.

Ultimately it is your table, if you feel that your players are using the Delay action in a way that unbalances combat encounters - talk to your players about it. It's far easier to get table consensus than to try to get buy in from the internet to agree with you that it shouldn't be in the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My players used Delay free actions in my game session Friday. Thus, I can provide a real example.

The PCs had inside information on the warrior guards to an enemy stronghold. The entrance has shrieker mushrooms, so the guards stayed further back out of sight. The scoundrel rogue in the party, a 3rd-level expert in Deception, figured that these guards were not disciplined and decided to lure them into an ambush. He mimicked the sound of a goat (not an action in the rulebook, but I figured a one-action Deception check would work) and a guard came out for an easy hunt for a fresh meal. The shriekers' shriek (harmless noise, not sonic damage like the PF2 shriekers) covered the sounds of the ambush.

The guard went down so fast that the druid PC and rogue NPC at the end of the initiative order did not get a chance to attack. The guards were 1st level and the party was 3rd level. The ambush was overkill.

Once the shrieker noise ended, the rogue mimicked the first guard--rolling 31 on his Deception check--asking for help because the goat died on a ledge. The second guard did not appear immediately, so the druid delayed her turn (the second guard needed time to ask other warriors to cover his post while he went outside). The rogue, in contrast, readied an action to throw a dagger once the guard was in sight, before the guard could take a Seek action to spot his hiding spot.

The second guard stepped out, the rogue threw his dagger for sneak attack damage, and the guard had time to throw a javelin at the rogue. He missed. In contrast, the druid, hiding behind a rock 60 feet away, took her turn immediately after the guard's turn. She cast Ray of Frost.

What if the druid had not delayed her turn? She probably would have not have been able to attack because the second guard went down as quickly as the first. And that is the only difference that delaying made.

The ranger also delayed, so that he could both Hunt Target and shoot, but her turn was right after the second guard's anyway, so that made even less difference. The ranger's player let the druid go first, since she had not been able to attack on the first guard.

And that is the main use of delay that I have seen. If a PC is waiting for an enemy to show up, then the PC does not want to waste his or her turn, "I spend my entire turn waiting." Delaying seems more satisfying.

Zapp wrote:

There simply isn't much of a cost to

a) making sure monsters have to move first "let them come to us, rather than us moving to them"
and
b) acting after the fighter on point
and
c) making sure we all act together, so to always present a "broad" front of several characters (so monsters are less likely to focus their fire on a sole hero)

a) My players' characters all have ranged attacks ready. Thus, they don't need to move to the monsters.

b) After the first turn, there is no difference between "after the fighter" and "before the fighter." Initiative is a rotation.
c) If the party groups their initiative to act together, then they also group their opponents' initiative. And the party is the one slowing themselves down to create the grouping.

The cost of Delaying is that an opponent that acted after the PC now acts before the PC.
ALCHEMIST: I delay my turn until after the fighter's turn.
GM: Okay. The chuul has its turn before the fighter. It runs up and (rolls dice) grabs the alchemist in its giant lobster claw.
ALCHEMIST: Fighter! Why didn't you protect me?
FIGHTER: I haven't had my first turn yet. Why didn't you protect yourself?

That is a big cost.

Zapp wrote:
I guess my main beef is that I find "my" monsters (I'm the GM) stand at a considerable disadvantage unless I myself start utilizing "initiative tactics".
Wikipedia wrote:
A Mexican standoff is a confrontation in which no strategy exists that allows any party to achieve victory. Any party initiating aggression might trigger their own demise. At the same time, the parties are unable to extricate themselves from the situation without suffering a loss. As a result, all participants need to maintain the strategic tension, which remains unresolved until some outside event makes it possible to resolve it.

These standoffs exist in the real world, so I am not surprised that they occur in Pathfinder, too. One side needs to adopt tactics that take advantage of the standoff, such as the party wizard throwing ranged spells while everyone else delays their turns into nothingness or the monsters happening to have a Sudden Charge ability.


15 people marked this as a favorite.

I think one mistake is treating the monsters as "your" monsters and not "Monsters in the Narrative You're Cooperatively Creating with Your Players" and thinking that they have to somehow necessarily be played like you're competing in a Warhammer match or something.

If a delaying contest would be boring or problematic, change things so that the delaying contest would be impossible or broken up. Enemies can be impatient, they can retreat, they can try to reason with the party, they can try to bluff or flank or cast spells; they can do any number of things that, instead of putting you "at a considerable disadvantage" move the story along to everyone's advantage, because the boring part of the encounter doesn't exist anymore.

Reserve the highly tactical boardgame stuff for enemies that would legitimately be highly tactical. Most things are going to be disorganized, enraged, ferocious, arrogant, or just not aware of tactical disadvantages to be worried much by it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you feel that Delay is being overused, how about putting a cost on it? Let's say one action: when you do take your turn, you only get two actions that turn. This would reflect a middle ground between continuous action (three actions each turn, on whatever initiative the dice gods gave you), intending to interrupt someone (ready action, only taking one action but on someone else's turn), or taking a wait-and-see approach.


Thank you all.

Seems two possibilities for easy (easyish?) stopgap measures, without shutting down the mechanism or breaking RAW (very much), would be to

#1 you delay in five initiative point chunks, no finer than that.

Your initiative is 21? You get asked at 16 if you want to "jump back in".

Or, you say "I want to act after Bob". Okay, Bob's got Initiative 14. So you get to act at 11.

#2 I simply don't reveal monster initiatives (until I do)


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Zapp wrote:

Thank you all.

Seems two possibilities for easy (easyish?) stopgap measures, without shutting down the mechanism or breaking RAW (very much), would be to
#1 you delay in five initiative point chunks, no finer than that.
Your initiative is 21? You get asked at 16 if you want to "jump back in".
Or, you say "I want to act after Bob". Okay, Bob's got Initiative 14. So you get to act at 11.
#2 I simply don't reveal monster initiatives (until I do)

Those are indeed two options. You could also try some of the ones other players mentioned in this thread.


So, Zapp, I would suggest that if you are only going to consider the two options you posted, go with #2. If the PCs don't know when the monsters are going to act, then delaying becomes a risk. Do I delay, hoping my party can dogpile the monster? Or, do I attack now, because if I delay, will the monster go and brutally maul the wizard or cleric, since I can't take reactions to stop it? What if the monster pulls out javelin or a bow and hits me with a ranged attack? Was it worth delaying?

The best course of action, though, is this: Sit down with your players and tell them how you feel. Tell them that you think the way they keep Initiative delaying is making the game feel less heroic and interesting to you, and you would prefer they only used it when it made sense and not solely to gain a tactical advantage every combat. I'm sure your players will be willing to listen to you and work with you to help tell the story. You've said this is your first time GM'ing Pathfinder in other threads, and I can honestly tell you that one of the keys to being a successful GM is communicating your expectations to them, and allowing them to communicate their expectations to you.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

I love Delay. Having played a lot of 5E before PF2, I am more than happy it is finally back.

As for the effort it takes to track initiative with delay, if you’re using a magnet board or a virtual initiative counter it’s as easy as drag and drop - never felt like delay was an issue.

Ready an action though? Tracking that is always a drag IMHO.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I also love delay, but I want my players working together like a swat team by the time the realize these tactics. Enemies can do lots of nasty things on their turns instead of delaying or charging to their doom...If it makes sense for them to do so. A monster moving forward and grabbing the wizard or cleric instead of attacking for damage on the first round might really disrupt the plans the players thought they had and it makes perfect sense for intelligent monsters to do so.

Going first is only bad in PF2 when your team is built around move actions being a waste time. Moving into cover, leaving the room for a more advantageous position, or calling out to raise the alarm are all very good actions for enemies to take when they realize they are in trouble.

But taking delay away from the players is a really big penalty because so many conditions end at the end of an enemies turn and it basically makes casters even worse when they cannot coordinate their spells casting fear on a enemy right before they go vs right afterwards makes a huge difference on its effectiveness.

Now that enemy might destroy you in the round where it is not going to be affected, or it might run away, but those possibilities make the decision to delay or not more fun, not less.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I agree with keeping Delay as is. We left pf1 for 5e when 5e first came out and the biggest thing missed from the start was delay. Most of the time, for my party atleast, wasn't to game it but simply due to the fact that there was no real option to do anything during their turn. When a player gets stuck now I suggest for them to delay. They have learned that clumping up in initiative is bad for them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Again thank you.

Perhaps I should add that I don't have a fight in me, so all of you mostly stating how you don't have a problem with Delay, you're not getting an individual response to me.

If you were to say "I do acknowledge the potential problems, but we're managing, and here's how" that would be another thing.

Likewise, those of you just explaining why Delay "needs" to be in the game - in this thread, I want to discuss the downsides. Just listing the upsides without context isn't going to draw me into discussion.

If you were to actually engage with the criticism fielded against Delay that would be another thing.

Finally, if some of you were interested in discussing the rationale behind Delay, that would too be interesting.

Delay appears to be somewhat of an odd duck in PF2. There are no other abilities in the CRB/Bestiary that key to it (Ettins' inability to Delay notwithstanding), no feats to make it better, for instance.

I find it odd to include an ability with a potential huge value for close to no cost. Meaning that PF2 is in nearly every other regard a game where bonuses come with costs, where you are always asked to choose. In comparison Delay comes across as a free lunch.

Or is it? Could it be that the PF2 devs did analyze Delay and agreed the lost initiative points were enough of a cost?

Just because I don't see it doesn't have to mean Paizo didn't, after all.

The other explanation, that Delay is in the game merely because it was in PF2, a holdover, an uncritical port, is something I don't want to believe.


12 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Zapp wrote:
Likewise, those of you just explaining why Delay "needs" to be in the game - in this thread, I want to discuss the downsides.

What was it you said the other day?

Oh yeah

“Zapp” wrote:
Stop trying to moderate the forums

People can reply to your post in whatever way they wish without you commenting on what aligns with your wishes and what does not. This a thread that you started, it is not your thread.

“Zapp” wrote:
I find it odd to include an ability with a potential huge value for close to no cost. Meaning that PF2 is in nearly every other regard a game where bonuses come with costs

Delay is a free action it is not an ability. It also provides no bonuses, it merely lets you shift your action to a lower slot in the initiative order or sacrifice that rounds action entirely. There is no mechanical benefit derived from that.

There seem to be several people in this thread who don’t see anything wrong with Delay as written, stating that you won’t engage with those people doesn’t make them wrong and you right.

Clearly something is wrong with the way it is being applied at your table, several people made suggestions about how to deal with that, but something not working in your game is not the same as it not working in the system writ large.

Rather than continuing to only engage with only the people who agree with you that Delay needs to be rewritten... engage with your players. Discuss your thoughts on Delay with them. You’ll get better results there.

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I personally love delay: it helps make my players feel like they are a real team. I will sometimes suggest that, when they delay, they say something quick in character, like 'cover me, I'm going in', or, 'Some haste so I can get past thier lines?' They are the heroes, and if I it helps with group cohesion, I'm happy. I can always adjust the opposition to an appropriatly fun difficulty level.

For your homegame, why dont you try dropping it and playing the way you want, or even try something exotic and new like popcorn inititive?


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

First of all:
Delay as written actually does have some consequences that are significant, making the choice to do it significant:
1. I cannot use a reaction until I reenter initiative, AFTER a creature has taken their turn. If I am a fighter in the front line of my party and I delay instead of taking a defensive position, I surrender my AoO and quite possibly allow an enemy to move right past me, or if I am a champion, I lose the ability to protect my allies. Or if I am a rogue with nimble dodge, I am basically saying "stab me now!"
2. If I am taking persistent damage, or I end up taking persistent damage before I reenter initiative order, I take that damage/effect at the start of my turn instead of its end. This means that I could back myself into a situation where I will end up unconscious before I even get to go.
and similarly:
3. If I am under a beneficial effect that would normally end at the end of my turn, they end before I get to go.

To say that Delay is a choice without consequence is misleading, and it will only take an enemy moving past a delaying fighter one time for the player to realize that Delay, while a good tactic to employ in certain situations is not a secret god mode unlock that needs to be used in every circumstance. But I think you, Zapp, are saying:

Zapp wrote:
I find that with analytical minmaxing gamers, the lack of a cost to Delay, its incredible precision and unerring accuracy, and that the possibility exists at all, strongly works against classic fantasy gaming where the Half-Orc Barbarian is overjoyed at rolling high on Initiative and jumps into the fray as soon as he can.

The problem here for you is not the delay action. Even if you removed the option to delay from the game, a tactically sound party will still not waste actions moving forward into melee combat in initiative order, they will just take smarter actions in the first round, occupying choke points behind cover, Start carrying Tower Shields to employ on the first round of combat.

The problem you are having with PF2's action economy is that having move actions and attack actions have the same value in play, combined with the inability of players to increase their defenses high enough to counter balance the risk of getting attacked 3 to 6 or even more times in a round, makes heroically moving forward two times and then attacking a terrible strategy for anyone, player or NPC. The question then becomes for both sides of the conflict, "does rolling high on initiative mean that you have an obligation to do the less tactically sound thing because it fits the narrative of enemies charging at each other?"

If I found out my GM disliked delaying tactics in session 0, and I was originally planning on making any kind of glass cannon melee character, I would immediately switch to playing a ranged martial to make sure that I was not forced into bad tactics for the sake of playing into played out story tropes.

PF2 combat is incredibly tactical. For me, that is what makes the simplification of pre-combat buffing and character optimization from PF1 so appealing: instead of winning the battle in character creation, combat requires communication between players and responding to the changing circumstances of the battlefield.

This is a huge part of why encounter pacing swings so wildly between parties. Parties that play combats tactically are capable of pushing much deeper into dungeons without burning through resources. But not every party wants to play that way, or is capable of doing so. So the GM can swing things with how they respond with enemy tactics (teaching the party how to play more tactically) or by rewarding play that feels "heroic" with tangible rewards...like "hero points."

Just know that the more pressure you put on your party to sweep the dungeon in one go, or to limit rests between encounters to restore hit points, the more you incentivize careful combatants rather than gung-ho heroics.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
The problem here for you is not the delay action. Even if you removed the option to delay from the game, a tactically sound party will still not waste actions moving forward into melee combat in initiative order, they will just take smarter actions in the first round, occupying choke points behind cover, Start carrying Tower Shields to employ on the first round of combat.

I understand that.

Except don't forget: that would still reduce the administrative load and potential analysis paralysis.

And also - without Delay you have a choice to make. Spend your turn on those worthy defensive actions, and maybe be faced with the exact same situation next turn. Or risk charging forth, and at least know you forced the the issue.

With Delay you're kind of both getting to eat the cake and have it too... the control you gain over your timing is incredible.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Zapp wrote:
I find it odd to include an ability with a potential huge value for close to no cost. Meaning that PF2 is in nearly every other regard a game where bonuses come with costs, where you are always asked to choose. In comparison Delay comes across as a free lunch.

IMO, don't think of it as an ability with no cost. Think of it as a benefit of rolling high on your initiative check. Beating your opponents in a check and getting a benefit for it isn't weird, it's the most basic rule of the system.

A game without delay on the other hand, is one where succeeding too well at your initiative check can, circumstances depending, be actively detrimental. The notion that you can be punished for rolling too well (by being made to waste a turn if circumstances prevent you from operating normally) is pretty at odds with the game's basic mechanics.

That doesn't really address fixing your problem, but I think that is kind of the 'why' behind delay.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I think choosing to remove delay from your own home game is fine as long as you talked to your players about it and they were either on board, or able to change their characters if they feel like the change would be punishing to them, if you really are feeling that it alone is the cause of much action paralysis at your table.

It has not been a negative factor at any of mine.

Shadow Lodge

14 people marked this as a favorite.

Decision paralysis comes from two things.

One is having too many choices and lacking a basis to evaluate between them. It's the giant restaurant menu that's in a foreign language so you have no idea what any of the items are. If this is the case, then work with your players to learn the rules and be more comfortable with the game.

The second reason, which is probably what you're facing here, is fear. It's why people get paralyzed in moments of high stress, if you're too afraid of making the wrong choice you don't make any choice at all. In this case, the game's probably too hard, try lowering the challenge of the enemies.
Players will learn via experience. Especially with a new experience like pf2, everyone is learning how it all functions for the first time. If their initial experience is that the first person to move into combat always gets wrecked, then they will learn not to be that person. If a player's first character was a barbarian, they charged straight into the first combat, and died, they're probably not going to do that again.

Lastly, a tense standoff between two groups, each waiting to see who will act first... This is a classic action scene. If all my PCs delayed, I'd have all the npcs delay as well, and play up the scene. Describe them pacing back and forth, posturing, shouting taunts, growling, or whatever's appropriate for said npc. It'd be the classic stare down before the action explodes, which rarely happens in a ttrpg, so milk it if you get the opportunity.

I don't think the delay action is the source of the problems you are attributing to it.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Gnoam's response is better than mine.

Encouraging back and forth banter during a tense stand off is great drama. And if caster support on either side just starts buffing/etc. it will up the tension on the decision to delay or not.

It seems like part of the issue is that your players have grown accustom to the idea that if they delay, the enemy will always charge in, stopping at the first creature they come to. That is probably fine for mindless enemies, and if the party rolls over some encounters with mindless enemies, that too is probably fine, good for them.

But when they are confronted with intelligent enemies who realize that they have reinforcements in the room behind them, there is no reason to make the enemies push forward to attack. Having one run back into the room behind them while the other takes a defensive position is a great way to establish a new tension point in the encounter. Maybe the one enemy can be rushed at this point, but if they don't finish that enemy off, the party might find themselves getting hit by a second wave before they could be ready. Or they don't engage, and then the reinforcements come all at once and the party is forced to defend their position from a superior foe.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Zapp wrote:
Except don't forget: that would still reduce the administrative load and potential analysis paralysis.

I never realized that erasing a number next to someones name and writing a smaller number in its place was an administrative choke point in running combat.

Kidding aside, if you don't like Delay - but you do like "Ready" from 5e (as you've indicated) why don't you just add a trigger component to Delay to make it more like Ready. It allows you to have the thing you liked at your table and it discourages the thing you disliked and all you did was add the requirement of a trigger to exit the readied state and act.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

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.

And personally, I think that's a lot worse for making things feel ultra tactical than delay is. In PF1 games, one common tactic was to ready a casting of magic missile to the enemy casting a spell to screw up their concentration. You can't pull the same thing off now. (Well, you can, but you're shaving off two thirds of the spell slots damage and never making them lose a spell with it.)

Vigilant Seal

3 people marked this as a favorite.

There's a HUGE cost to Delay - You cannot use any reactions and your buffs expire unused!

Grand Lodge Premier Event Coordinator

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't think it is fair to compare the 5E methodology to PF. The former is intentionally "streamlined" rules while the latter is intentionally a more complex ruleset. The reasoning from 5E for not including a delay action is perfectly sound. Its just not what PF wants to represent.

If we are talking about a home game and the players are hyper-abusing the delay action beyond what you think it was intended for, then simply eliminate it from the action list. Maybe consider requiring a specific length of delay. Something like "I delay until after that orc." Then when that orc's turn is over, they can either take their turn or spend another action to continue to delay. If the orc decides to delay, the end of his turn still triggers the player's delayed turn. Or maybe increase the cost to delay from one action to two. That is a heavy price to pay for initiative manipulation and why we don't see much readying in 2E. Personally, I think action economy in 2E is exceptionally important and giving up even one action from your turn can be incredibly costly.

If we are talking about organized play, the players always have an edge on the GM because the latter does not have full freedom and flexibility to react to what the players do. They have to "run as written." So, just chalk it up to exceptionally experienced tactical play and move on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:

IMO, don't think of it as an ability with no cost. Think of it as a benefit of rolling high on your initiative check. Beating your opponents in a check and getting a benefit for it isn't weird, it's the most basic rule of the system.

A game without delay on the other hand, is one where succeeding too well at your initiative check can, circumstances depending, be actively detrimental. The notion that you can be punished for rolling too well (by being made to waste a turn if circumstances prevent you from operating normally) is pretty at odds with the game's basic mechanics.

That doesn't really address fixing your problem, but I think that is kind of the 'why' behind delay.

Well, thanks, but it doesn't really explain why it wasn't deemed enough to ask the delaying player to simply skip his turn and act on his initiative the next turn.

That accomplishes much of the same objectives with none of the costs.

After all, the thinking that "okay so I'm lowering my initiative from 21 to 11, but at least I'm not losing my turn this round" is only an illusion in a cyclic initiative game like PF2.

Whether you act on initiative 11 in round #1 or on initiative 21 in round #2 does not change the number of turns you get to make relative to the monster. You still go from acting before the monster to acting after it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
dirtypool wrote:


Kidding aside, if you don't like Delay - but you do like "Ready" from 5e (as you've indicated) why don't you just add a trigger component to Delay to make it more like Ready. It allows you to have the thing you liked at your table and it discourages the thing you disliked and all you did was add the requirement of a trigger to exit the readied state and act.

I'll be honest: what I like about Delay is that it feels sufficiently constrained to be used only on special occasions. :)

I wonder why Paizo made Ready so constrained while making Delay so very open.

Why not remove Delay and open up Ready to allowing you to spend three actions to ready a two-action action (like casting a spell)?

After all, we've established that the main casualty of losing Delay would be spellcasters looking to time their spells.

But if Ready weren't actively caster-hostile (one action maximum), that would, I think, remove much of the pain of losing Delay.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Zapp wrote:
Well, thanks, but it doesn't really explain why it wasn't deemed enough to ask the delaying player to simply skip his turn and act on his initiative the next turn.

It seems pretty self explanatory why asking someone to forfeit their turn doesn't feel particularly great.

Quote:
Whether you act on initiative 11 in round #1 or on initiative 21 in round #2 does not change the number of turns you get to make relative to the monster. You still go from acting before the monster to acting after it.

That's assuming the only choice you're making is whether to act before or after the monster. So, yeah, that's true in a one-on-one fight I guess.

But there's a pretty significant difference between the fighter choosing to delay until the end of the Wizard's turn so the Wizard can throw up a buff or debuff or cast an AoE without risking hitting the Fighter and the Fighter completely forfeiting their turn.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
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.


Zapp wrote:
What do you feel about this? I'm especially asking those of you who doesn't come to Pathfinder 2 from PF1 or 3.x. (For instance, 5E doesn't have Delay at all)

I come from PF1 and 3.x, sorry about that.

I play mostly spellcasters. If the Barbarian Sudden Charges, he basically screws me of one excellent round, the first one, as I'll need 2 move actions to get to range so I won't be able to cast a spell.
It's already hard (I play PFS) to explain to all Barbarians that they should wait. If you remove Delay, everyone will rush, and I'll just play another character or another game.

Also, my ability to cast Heal and Fireball is rewarded by forcing the monsters to come to us (the situations where the Barbarian has to come to the enemies are the exception when you have proper casters in your party, most of the time enemies are better at close range than long range).
So, I find the strategy of "waiting for the enemy" to be a very valid one. Now, if you have a party full of melee martials, this is a normal punition to show them the limit of their builds by having ridiculous fights where noone wants to move forward.

And the Barbarian has lots of things to do in his first round: Drawing his weapon, raging, stancing, drawing a bow and shoot, readying. So, it's not like if he had to delay. He just needs not to move forward, that's all.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Zapp wrote:
If the characters can't contain fights to their "assigned" rooms, things quickly spiral out of control.

If your players are delaying and their foes use this inaction as time to reinforce, then it seems to me that this situation (with your players abusing this method, at least in in your eyes) will resolve itself.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
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.

I do run APs and will still have enemies run for support if it makes sense for them to do so. Letting player decisions affect the difficulty of encounters is what makes dungeons feel alive and responsive. The risk of having smart enemies go for reinforcements is another check against players playing too cautiously.


Unicore 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.

I do run APs and will still have enemies run for support if it makes sense for them to do so. Letting player decisions affect the difficulty of encounters is what makes dungeons feel alive and responsive. The risk of having smart enemies go for reinforcements is another check against players playing too cautiously.

Yeah, sometimes a situation requires a party to throw caution to the wind and charge in. Sometimes it requires them to take a careful and calculated approach. Taking away Delay just precludes many versions of that second option, and in my opinion at least, table top RPG's are where you should have as many options as possible.

After all the beauty of these games is that it allows you to use your critical thinking and imagination to combat problems you would never otherwise encounter. I will likely never have to fight a dragon in real life. But it is a TON of fun figuring out how to do so within the bounds of a game.

If you were to remove delay, you are slightly hamstringing a parties ability to coordinate. To me, this is a bad thing. Alter and add a cost if you need to, but I definitely wouldn't cut out the option.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:


It seems pretty self explanatory why asking someone to forfeit their turn doesn't feel particularly great.
Quote:


That's assuming the only choice you're making is whether to act before or after the monster. So, yeah, that's true in a one-on-one fight I guess.

But there's a pretty significant difference between the fighter choosing to delay until the end of the Wizard's turn so the Wizard can throw up a buff or debuff or cast an AoE without risking hitting the Fighter and the Fighter completely forfeiting their turn.

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

Shadow Lodge

A note on combining rooms: It's easy to explain why this does or does not happen, if you are worried your players can't handle multiple combats piling up, then just don't do it.

Ex: In a military situation, where soldiers are assigned posts, and they hear fighting at another post, they do not go rushing off and abandon their post to reinforce the other one. They stick to their sector and prepare for enemy contact.


Zapp wrote:
Squiggit wrote:


It seems pretty self explanatory why asking someone to forfeit their turn doesn't feel particularly great.
Quote:


That's assuming the only choice you're making is whether to act before or after the monster. So, yeah, that's true in a one-on-one fight I guess.

But there's a pretty significant difference between the fighter choosing to delay until the end of the Wizard's turn so the Wizard can throw up a buff or debuff or cast an AoE without risking hitting the Fighter and the Fighter completely forfeiting their turn.

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

And as TwilightKnight pointed out, you can't really compare the two design philosophies like they are the same. 5E went for simpler rules. PF2 went for more in depth rules with more options.

If I liked 5e's design more than PF2's, I'd be over on their forums. I am not.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
beowulf99 wrote:
If I liked 5e's design more than PF2's, I'd be over on their forums. I am not.

This is something I can agree with you on: If anything, I like the rule MORE because 5e doesn't like it. Bringing up 'but 5e doesn't allow it cuz...' doesn't impress me in the least.

1 to 50 of 104 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Delay action and the good of the game All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.