Delay into the next round

[Tridus]

bugleyman wrote:

Tridus wrote:

This is a case where a simpler rule that doesn't worry about rounds at all works better than a more complex rule that does.

I agree! And if you read my posts carefully, you will see that I have the agreed the entire time. The problem is that my players don't, even after reading this thread.

Yeah that wasn't aimed at you, it was aimed at Unicore. I agree with you, after all. :)

Quote:

Paizo could solve this problem in five minutes with a FAQ entry, giving me something official to point my players to. And so I asked if anyone was aware of that having occurred. Instead of an answer, I got a bunch of folks insisting that -- despite the existence of this thread -- there is no problem (with the added bonus of several being pretty condescending).

I do not understand how this sort of reception is supposed to help the game, or Paizo, but we should be trying to do better than "if it isn't a problem for me, then it isn't a problem."

Yep. Unfortunately that didn't happen. There is no official ruling.

So the option that's left is a ruling/house rule and just tell your players this is how it will be because RAW is silly in this case. It isn't the first time that's been the case and it won't be the last.

I've had to do that with a player now and then where at some point my answer simply becomes "I know you don't agree but I'm not running it RAW and as the GM I get to make that call." They can run it differently if they run a campaign.

[NorrKnekten]

bugleyman wrote:

Paizo could solve this problem in five minutes with a FAQ entry, giving me something official to point my players to. And so I asked if anyone was aware of that having occurred. Instead of an answer, I got a bunch of folks insisting that -- despite the existence of this thread -- there is no problem (with the added bonus of several being pretty condescending).

I do not understand how this sort of reception is supposed to help the game, or Paizo, but we should be trying to do better than "if it isn't a problem for me, then it isn't a problem."

I mean, this thread does have a concensus that you can delay into the next round barring a few that obviously reads the text differently which is inevitable considering language barriers and experience.

Paizo also doesn't solve these things in 5 minutes as multiple people needs to come together to make discuss wether a change is neccesary and what said change should be, and we know that alot of the things brought up in the errata suggestions are basically tossed or ignored for later errata passes during the very first round as there simply isn't enough time to adress every minor point that a table can adjudicate themselves.

Mark Seifter on the Errata Process

Basically;
-Do they really need to clarify delay specifically when your issue lies entirely within what your players think the definition of a round is.
-Why would they feel the need to when everything timed to rounds already carry into the next round?

Its still you that are the GM and decide how rules apply when its unclear.

[NorrKnekten]

Tridus wrote:

This is a case where a simpler rule that doesn't worry about rounds at all works better than a more complex rule that does

Doesnt the rulebook already reccomend that in a kinda akward way, Saying that it isn't neccesary to track combat rounds or initiative past the first round and instead just have a cyclic order?

[glass]

bugleyman wrote:

I agree! And if you read my posts carefully, you will see that I have the agreed the entire time. The problem is that my players don't, even after reading this thread.

So what's the problem? Tell them you're the GM and you're going with your interpretation of the rules (they can consider it a house rule if they prefer).

Or if you prefer, tell them you're going with their interpretation of the rules. If people occasionally have to come out of delay earlier than they would by RAW, that a minor annoyance at worst AFAICT.

bugleyman wrote:

Paizo could solve this problem in five minutes with a FAQ entry

FAQ entries take a lot longer than five minutes, and with their various tribulations lately, Paizo do not have the bandwidth address imaginary rules problems (they do not seem to have the bandwidth to address real rules problems in a timely matter). If the fact that someone somewhere could possibly misread a particular rule was enough to generate an FAQ entry, the FAQ would be near infinite. Because someone somewhere can always misread any given rule, no matter how clear you try to make it.

bugleyman wrote:

I do not understand how this sort of reception is supposed to help the game, or Paizo, but we should be trying to do better than "if it isn't a problem for me, then it isn't a problem."

What reception? People saying that you can Delay into the next round, and that the rules are fairly clear on that score? Given that you can and they are, I'd say that's exactly the sort of reception you should expect.

[bugleyman]

glass wrote:

Paizo do not have the bandwidth address imaginary rules problems.

"If it isn't a problem for me, then it isn't a problem" almost verbatim, laced with a tinge of condescension (because clearly my players -- along with all other people who have posed this question here and elsewhere -- are just imagining things).

Thank you for so effectively demonstrating precisely the attitude I described!

[Unicore]

I think it is important to step back and remember that this is the rules discussion forum. So people looking at these threads come here to discuss the rules, often with different perspectives on how to interpret the rules. There is no hint anywhere that this is the place to come and ask rules questions to the developers and expect to get answers. The only place things like that ever exist are in AMAs that tend to happen at conventions, in person or online.

Continuing to discuss how people understand the rules and why is the expectation people bring to this conversation.

With that in mind, I personally don’t understand what someone who believes that you cannot delay past the end of a combat round does when a character has delayed initiative until the end of the round. Do they believe the character goes back to their original place in the turn order? Or do they now go last, as they waited until the very end of the round? And if that is the case, can anyone delay later past them? Because that would imply someone waiting past the end of the round. It feels like this creates a logic paradox that doesn’t happen if you read round (in the context of delay) as subjective to your character: the time between when your turn starts and the start of your next turn.

[glass]

bugleyman wrote:

glass wrote:

Paizo do not have the bandwidth address imaginary rules problems.

"If it isn't a problem for me, then it isn't a problem" almost verbatim, laced with a tinge of condescension (because clearly my players -- along with all other people who have posed this question here and elsewhere -- are just imagining things).

Not remotely "verbatim". Not even similar.

You yourself said you read it the same way I do. And even if your players read it slightly different, so what? I think they're wrong, and it is not condescending to say so, but its such a low impact thing you can just go with whichever.

The "condescension" that mostly seems to be coming from you.