Do turns within a round occur simultaneously or in sequence?

[DatsyukianDeke]

Hello! I am a relatively new Pathfinder player, and I am in a group with several much more experienced players. The other day, we had a disagreement about a rather complicated situation that boiled down to a fairly simple conceptual rules question: do all player turns in a round occur simultaneously or is there some discernible amount of time that elapses between the various initiative orders in a round? I feel that the latter is more accurate, but one of the other players in the group said that this is not the case. Can anyone shed light on this?

For some background on why this was relevant to our game, the aforementioned player failed their save against the Command spell, which states

Command Spell wrote:

You give the subject a single command, which it obeys to the best of its ability at its earliest opportunity. You may select from the following options…

The spell has a duration of 1 round. On his subsequent turn, the player who failed his save chose to delay his action until after the spell caster, claiming that since “Effects that last a certain number of rounds end just before the same initiative count that they began on,” the one round duration of Command had expired and he was no longer required to obey the order. When someone else in the group pointed out that the spell specifically states that the target must obey “at its earliest opportunity”, he said that since all turns in a round occur simultaneously, he had not violated the edict of the spell because no time had elapsed between his original initiative position and the new one he assumed after delaying his action.

I disputed this with him, specifically citing the text of the Delay action, which states that

Delay Action wrote:

You never get back the time you spend waiting to see what’s going to happen.

To me, this implies that some amount of time must lapse while you are waiting. He, in turn, pointed out that it would be impossible for all the actions in a turn to occur sequentially and still fit within the 6 second window of a round. After a couple of discussions on the subject, neither of us are convinced by the other's viewpoint, and I have decided to not push the issue further. After all, rules are not worth friends getting upset at each other, and the game is still very fun either way. This doesn’t change the fact, however, that I am very curious about the actual answer. If a similar issue crops up down the line or with a different group of players, I’d like to have a better understanding of how it should work. I appreciate your responses in advance.

[ErichAD]

If your friend argues that one time in initiative is the same as another time in the initiative, then clearly he would be effected by the command spell at any point in the initiative. They're all equal after all.

[avr]

"at its earliest opportunity", i.e. he can't delay but must act as commanded at the earliest opportunity.

[Meirril]

Each round is 6 seconds, and each player takes their actions during each round. So in that sense, the other player is correct.

The part that the other player failed at is trying to cheese his way out of Command. He isn't allowed to delay, he MUST follow the command at the earliest time he is allowed to, which is usually the beginning of his next initiative.

[MrCharisma]

TLDR: The concept is that everything is happening at once, but in reality we're playing a turn-based game.

DatsyukianDeke wrote:

“Effects that last a certain number of rounds end just before the same initiative count that they began on,”

This is actually correct.

DatsyukianDeke wrote:

... he said that since all turns in a round occur simultaneously, he had not violated the edict of the spell because no time had elapsed between his original initiative position and the new one he assumed after delaying his action.

This isn't.

DatsyukianDeke wrote:

He, in turn, pointed out that it would be impossible for all the actions in a turn to occur sequentially and still fit within the 6 second window of a round. 

That's true, but irrelevant. The turn sequence is an abstract representation of time, so there are parts of it that don't translate perfectly to real life. What it does is give us a guideline for how to run a turn-based simulation of real-time events.

[DatsyukianDeke]

Thank you all for your input!

MrCharisma wrote:

The turn sequence is an abstract representation of time, so there are parts of it that don't translate perfectly to real life. What it does is give us a guideline for how to run a turn-based simulation of real-time events.

This is a more eloquent rendition of how I interpreted the round mechanics. Thank you for putting it so clearly. It's nice to have some assurance that, at the very least, I'm not crazy.

[gnoams]

As a general rule, you cannot delay to put off an involuntary thing. For example, if you have a bleed effect on you and your turn comes up, you take the bleed damage first, then your turn happens at which point you can choose to delay. If the involuntary effect forced you to spend actions, like the command spell, you would have to spend the required actions to carry out the command, and therefore would not be able to delay.

[Claxon]

Turns are actually sequential from a perspective of how the game is run, but it's supposed to be a simulation of fluid time. Obviously it's not, because a creature can be knocked unconscious before their turn in a round and get to take no actions (or be tripped or have any number of things happen to them that would affect their turn in the round even though if it everything were happening at once they would at least start acting before something happened to them).

But this isn't a computer game, which is about the only way you can have real time game play and I thin one of the main appeals of table top is turn based game play which comes with its quirks but allows for more tactical and thoughtful play.

Ultimately, you're playing either didn't understand the rules well or was just trying to come up with excuses to avoid the enemy's spell.

I can't say for certain, but it honestly feels more like the second than the first.

[Diego Rossi]

Claxon wrote:

Turns are actually sequential from a perspective of how the game is run, but it's supposed to be a simulation of fluid time. Obviously it's not, because a creature can be knocked unconscious before their turn in a round and get to take no actions (or be tripped or have any number of things happen to them that would affect their turn in the round even though if it everything were happening at once they would at least start acting before something happened to them).

But this isn't a computer game, which is about the only way you can have real time game play and I thin one of the main appeals of table top is turn based game play which comes with its quirks but allows for more tactical and thoughtful play.

Ultimately, you're playing either didn't understand the rules well or was just trying to come up with excuses to avoid the enemy's spell.

I can't say for certain, but it honestly feels more like the second than the first.

If you have played Fallout from 3 onward you would know that even in real-time it is possible to be unable to act. You get staggered while drawing your weapon and you are delayed and hit again. You are hit by a strong creature while aiming and your weapon is deflected and you have to aim again. It has its forms of tactical playing, but when you are in melee they are reduced.

In real-time games, distance matters more, as you use it to deal damage with ranged weapons or to set up for close combat.

[Claxon]

I've played Fallout 3, New Vegas, and 4. VATs make combat feels more like you direct your character on a general course of action but stuff can still happen.

The difference that I was trying to get at is that you can be completely unable to act, not even getting a chance to draw a weapon in the turn. IN a real time game, your actions can be interrupted but there are no turns to be unable to act in.

[DatsyukianDeke]

gnoams wrote:

As a general rule, you cannot delay to put off an involuntary thing.

This makes sense to me. I even found a Paizo blog post that explicitly states this in regards to saving throws against poison. Does anyone know of a source (beyond common sense) that spells out this general rule explicitly?

Claxon wrote:

Turns are actually sequential from a perspective of how the game is run, but it's supposed to be a simulation of fluid time. Obviously it's not, because a creature can be knocked unconscious before their turn in a round and get to take no actions

Likewise, I share your perspective on this. I'm not the GM in this case, however, so I don't have the final say. I like your description of Pathfinder as turn-based strategy rather than real-time strategy.

[Dragonchess Player]

By RAW, turns in a round occur in sequence. As mentioned, this is an abstraction (from RPGs' wargaming roots) to make gameplay easier.

Now, if you are using the alternate action economy from Pathfinder Unchained, then you could have each of the "acts" occur in sequence as if each were a "mini-round" for initiative order. However, the added complexity required to make things more "realistic" is probably more trouble than it's worth.

[Claxon]

Pathfinder is definitely turned based, which creates opportunities for more complex game play.

I recently started playing the Pathfinder Kingmaker video game...and found the real time combat extremely jarring compared to what I was expecting. Now thankfully someone made a turn based combat which allows me the level of control I want. But trying to orchestrate combat in a real time situation meant leaving some control to AI and meant not being able to set up combo like debuff saves to land spells because controlling all of that in real time just isn't manageable, but it turned based it is.

Now I'm not saying real time is bad, but it's definitely not what I expect in a Pathfinder game.