|
This topic raised its ugly head again in a PFS special during a convention last week-end.
My PC was last in Initiative order.
I wanted to Delay into the next round to hit opponents with an AoE effect after the Fighter could step out of the area.
Another player reacted strongly that I could not Delay past the end of the 1st round (and thus that, because of being the slowest, I could not Delay at all) because then I was reaching the end of the round and Delaying beyond that was not allowed.
"If you Delay an entire round without returning to the initiative order, the actions from the Delayed turn are lost, your initiative doesn't change, and your next turn occurs at your original position in the initiative order."
I found that interpretation preposterous as I thought being the slowest to act should not mean you could not Delay. And I argued that an entire round was between my original initiative in round 1 and my original initiative in round 2 (how I used to see rounds in 3.x/PF1) and thus I could indeed Delay in the second round.
I now believe we were both wrong, because PF2 redefined what "an entire round" is:
"A round begins when the participant with the highest initiative roll result starts their turn, and it ends when the one with the lowest initiative ends their turn."
So, in my case, the RAW seems to be, if I do not return to the initiative order soon enough:
Round 1 starts.
Round 1, my turn = I Delay (and am removed from the initiative order).
Round 1 ends. I have not yet Delayed an entire round without returning to the initiative order.
Round 2 starts with the participant with the highest initiative roll result starting their turn.
Round 2 ends with the participant with the lowest initiative ending their turn.
Round 3 begins.
I have then Delayed an entire round without returning to the initiative order.
- My actions from the Delayed turn are lost
- My initiative doesn't change
- My next turn occurs at my original position in the initiative order. On round 3.
Thoughts ?
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
This reads like a classic case of someone trying to twist themselves into knots following a strict literal reading of something that isn't meant to be treated like a computer program.
"Delaying a round" means that you delay for an entire round's worth of actions, which would be when your turn comes around again. Why? Because the other interpretation doesn't make any sense and comes up with this silly idea that the person at the end of the order isn't allowed to delay at all.
Your interpretation is the only one that makes sense. Delay means you wait and don't act until you do. If you don't do that before your turn comes around again, you lost that previous turn since you just waited for the whole thing. The idea is to prevent someone from double-stacking by delaying so long that they wind up with two turns in a row.
That's it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The idea is to prevent someone from double-stacking by delaying so long that they wind up with two turns in a row.
I Default for 3 rounds. Then I Brave and cast fireball 4 times.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, the character is slow to get into the action (by default, to realize that there is a fight). That's why they usually cannot do anything until their first turn.
Even this isn't a given in PF2e. The GM decides whether a creature can use a reaction before its first turn depending on the circumstances. Unfortunately, there is no guidance in GM Core about how to make this determination.
The new Guardian class refers to this rule but doesn't clear things up either.
You always gain a reaction whenever you roll initiative for combat, but you can use it only for reactions from guardian feats or class features. The GM might still rule that you can use other reactions before your first turn based on the situation, as normal.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The new Guardian class refers to this rule but doesn't clear things up either.
You always gain a reaction whenever you roll initiative for combat, but you can use it only for reactions from guardian feats or class features. The GM might still rule that you can use other reactions before your first turn based on the situation, as normal.
Personally I see things like this as more supporting the idea that you shouldn't be expecting to normally have your reaction before your first turn, else it minimizes the impact of this ability (which is already restricting what kind of reactions you can do) but it can obviously be interpreted in either way since it isn't explicit, just like the core GM section isn't.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pyroclastic Breath: "A creature that spends an entire round in the smoke with open eyes must succeed at a DC 44 Fortitude save or be blinded for 1 minute." How do you believe the people arguing against Delaying past the end of the round would rule on this ability if they were engulfed in this smoke after their turn, and then the round ended. Should they be blinded immediately because according to them "an entire round" has ended, or after they "get a chance to act" and it's come back around to the Linnorm's turn? This is written exactly the same way as Delay
Beautiful counterexample. That is certainly enough to convince me to invoke the Ambiguous Rules rule at the very least.
To be fair, I initially thought that the rule in Delay was meaning 'until the next time your original initiative count came up' rather than the somewhat arbitrary 'table round' that ends when the initiative count reaches zero. So I'm not really hard to convince in this case.
The new Guardian class refers to this rule but doesn't clear things up either.
It was not ambiguous to begin with and the Guardian class rule reinforces what is already perfectly clear.
"The GM determines" is valid RAW. That is not ambiguous.
Individuals may not like that answer because it means that they can't know what to expect before asking the GM and because the answer that they get changes on a case-by-case basis.
But that still doesn't make the RAW unclear or ambiguous.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I see things like this as more supporting the idea that you shouldn't be expecting to normally have your reaction before your first turn, else it minimizes the impact of this ability (which is already restricting what kind of reactions you can do) but it can obviously be interpreted in either way since it isn't explicit, just like the core GM section isn't.The new Guardian class refers to this rule but doesn't clear things up either.
You always gain a reaction whenever you roll initiative for combat, but you can use it only for reactions from guardian feats or class features. The GM might still rule that you can use other reactions before your first turn based on the situation, as normal.
The Guardian ability is removing table variation. The Guardian has their reactions, full stop.
Since the GM gets to decide this normally there is a lot of table variation. The rules don't say "you should unless there's a reason" or "you shouldn't unless there's a reason", so there is no default being given.
That means at some tables it will matter a lot and at some other tables it won't matter very often, but the ability removes any ambiguity or variation for the Guardian player, which is nice since it means they can always do their thing. So this ability helps in both cases and thus itself doesn't act as supporting evidence either way, IMO.
The Guardian ability is removing table variation. The Guardian has their reactions, full stop.
That's not entirely accurate.
The Guardian ability only guarantees that they can use their Guardian abilities. It wouldn't guarantee them a reaction that they can use for Recognize Spell or Skeptic's Defense.
To use those reactions before their first turn, they are still in the area of needing the GM to allow everyone their reactions before their first turn.
So this ability helps in both cases and thus itself doesn't act as supporting evidence either way, IMO.
And again, it very much does support the idea that the RAW is that the GM decides if the characters have their reaction available on a case-by-case basis according to the circumstances of each battle.
The GM might still rule that you can use other reactions before your first turn based on the situation, as normal.
It explicitly says that the GM making that determination based on the situation is what is intended.
What it doesn't do is give any support one way or another to help the GM determine whether or not to allow reactions before a character's first turn in any given combat scenario.
That's all well and good until you find yourself stuck with a GM that won't let you use Intercept Attack to cover a friend from an unseen distant sniper because he hasn't called for an Initiative roll yet.
Guardian reactions aren't guaranteed if you haven't yet rolled for Initiative.
It does make an certain amount of sense that an enemy the guardian isn't aware can make an attack that can't be intercepted.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So this ability helps in both cases and thus itself doesn't act as supporting evidence either way, IMO.And again, it very much does support the idea that the RAW is that the GM decides if the characters have their reaction available on a case-by-case basis according to the circumstances of each battle.
I mean, that's literally the rule. What I was replying to is the idea that this ability is evidence that the default is "you don't have reactions until you act". It shouldn't be taken as evidence either way in terms of what an assumed default is.
There isn't one: the GM just gets to decide.
Typically, when a player-facing rule requires the GM to determine something, GM Core provides some guidance for how to make that determination. To not have any for a rule this important is a pretty big deal.
Should I allow monster who went last to Reactive Strike the fighter with reach and improved knockdown? Should I let the wizard who was Shoved off a cliff Grab an Edge or cast Feather Fall? In what situations? Whenever they aren't ambushed? Whenever they had foreknowledge of the encounter and when it would happen? How about the cleric's spells triggered by rolling initiative?
This topic raised its ugly head again in a PFS special during a convention last week-end.
My PC was last in Initiative order.
I wanted to Delay into the next round to hit opponents with an AoE effect after the Fighter could step out of the area.
Another player reacted strongly that I could not Delay past the end of the 1st round (and thus that, because of being the slowest, I could not Delay at all) because then I was reaching the end of the round and Delaying beyond that was not allowed.
"If you Delay an entire round without returning to the initiative order, the actions from the Delayed turn are lost, your initiative doesn't change, and your next turn occurs at your original position in the initiative order."
I found that interpretation preposterous as I thought being the slowest to act should not mean you could not Delay. And I argued that an entire round was between my original initiative in round 1 and my original initiative in round 2 (how I used to see rounds in 3.x/PF1) and thus I could indeed Delay in the second round.
I now believe we were both wrong, because PF2 redefined what "an entire round" is:
"A round begins when the participant with the highest initiative roll result starts their turn, and it ends when the one with the lowest initiative ends their turn."
So, in my case, the RAW seems to be, if I do not return to the initiative order soon enough:
Round 1 starts.
Round 1, my turn = I Delay (and am removed from the initiative order).
Round 1 ends. I have not yet Delayed an entire round without returning to the initiative order.
Round 2 starts with the participant with the highest initiative roll result starting their turn.
Round 2 ends with the participant with the lowest initiative ending their turn.
Round 3 begins.
I have then Delayed an entire round without returning to the initiative order.
- My actions from the Delayed turn are lost
- My initiative doesn't change
- My next turn occurs at my original position in the initiative order. On round 3.
Thoughts ?
You are in the right in theory, but your example is wrong IMO.
Lets say it's 3 enemies, you, and your Buddy, and the initiative ends up like this:
Enemy A
Enemy B
You
Enemy C
Your Buddy
Round 1, Enemy A, and Enemy B take their turns. You choose to Delay on your turn.
Enemy C goes, and you don't re-enter initiative.
Your Buddy goes, and you do not re-enter initiative.
We now begin Round 2.
Enemy A goes, and you do not re-enter initiative.
Enemy B goes, and you do not re-enter initiative.
At this point, you have spent 1 whole round in Delay, so per the rules you now come back into initiative in your original position, having lost all your actions from Round 1.
Because you can only re-enter as a free action triggered by the end of another creature's turn, there is no difference in this example between coming in after Enemy B or just letting Delay run its course and being reinserted normally. It also means you can only ever "gain" initiative if there are 2 or more creatures before you. If you go second, there is no way to ever go first.*
*At least, I think. If, in our example, you re-enter initiative after Your Buddy, I'm not sure if rules-wise you now become the last guy to take your turn on Round 1, or the first guy to take your turn on Round 2. But on the other hand I'm not entirely sure if this changes anything with regards to effects, so it might just be a non-issue.
|
|
If it's 3:00:55 o'clock and you wait "an entire minute", is it 3:01:00 or 3:01:55?
That's the question.
Another way of phrasing it is that an entire round has passed when initiative has come round to you again.
I honestly believe this is the common mistake so many people, myself included, actually do.
Contrary to previous editions, a round is not a duration in PF2.
It is a period of time between 2 events : when the first in Initiative starts acting and when the last in Initiative ends acting.
Note how there is zero reference in the RAW to your original position in the initiative while you are still delaying.
That is because the period between your original position in the initiative in the round when you delayed and your original position in the following round does not actually define a round.
Saying it does is actually a houserule.
What defines a round is explicitly stated: from fastest's first action to slowest's last action.
Initiative does not "come round to you again" while you are still delaying.
|
If it's 3:00:55 o'clock and you wait "an entire minute", is it 3:01:00 or 3:01:55?
That's the question.
Another way of phrasing it is that an entire round has passed when initiative has come round to you again.
I honestly believe this is the common mistake so many people, myself included, actually do.
Contrary to previous editions, a round is not a duration in PF2.
It is a period of time between 2 events : when the first in Initiative starts acting and when the last in Initiative ends acting.
Note how there is zero reference in the RAW to your original position in the initiative while you are still delaying.
That is because the period between your original position in the initiative in the round when you delayed and your original position in the following round does not actually define a round.
Saying it does is actually a houserule.
What defines a round is explicitly stated: from fastest's first action to slowest's last action.
Initiative does not "come round to you again" while you are still delaying.
A round is absolutely a duration, and your definition doesn't work anyway since your next turn has also passed.
Even if a round is not a specific amount of time, a full round has passed, if the one before you has acted again and the one after you hasn't acted yet. (Assuming, that their position in the initiative order were not changed.)It's an entirely self-inflicted situation though. A delayer can literally ensure that a full round never passes during one of their delays. Let's imagine there is A, B, and C in initiative order, and you are C.
Round 1, C's turn: 'I delay.'
Round 2, A has gone. C says "I re-enter the initiative order...now for my action, I delay."
Round 2, B has gone. C says "I re-enter the initiative order, and then act."
That's... exactly the same. Worse if you have any ongoing effects going. There's no benefit over just delaying the round at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the term "entire round" is meant to help clarify that it doesn't mean "until the start of your next turn. The whole purpose of Delay is to change when your next turn is, so it makes sense to deviate a bit from how durations are usually measured: by making a counter and decrementing at the start of each of the user's turns.
But I think there are other effects where the "entire round" understanding might be better than how they already work. For instance, Delay Consequence can be a lifesaver, or it can get you killed. It's a reaction that delays its triggers effects for 1 round, meaning until the start of your turn. There's also Cloak of Colors, which forces the attacker to save against blinded or stunned for 1 round, so attacking the target just before the caster's turn means nothing.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It absolutely means the start of your next turn. If you Delay an entire round, then it's just your next turn.
You generally don't want you do that, but here's what happens if you do.
And the round duration on cloak of colors is for the condition, not the spell. That's not created on the caster's turn, so it wouldn't tick down on their turn.
That can be an issue with reactions, though, sure. (...why can you Dismiss delay consequences?)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If it's 3:00:55 o'clock and you wait "an entire minute", is it 3:01:00 or 3:01:55?
That's the question.
Another way of phrasing it is that an entire round has passed when initiative has come round to you again.
I honestly believe this is the common mistake so many people, myself included, actually do.
Contrary to previous editions, a round is not a duration in PF2.
It is a period of time between 2 events : when the first in Initiative starts acting and when the last in Initiative ends acting.
Note how there is zero reference in the RAW to your original position in the initiative while you are still delaying.
That is because the period between your original position in the initiative in the round when you delayed and your original position in the following round does not actually define a round.
Saying it does is actually a houserule.
What defines a round is explicitly stated: from fastest's first action to slowest's last action.
Initiative does not "come round to you again" while you are still delaying.
But this doesn't really work? If we look at effects that have duration in rounds (of which there are a lot), they do not work with your definition of rounds.
If you have Enemy A, Enemy B, Bard, Enemy C, Fighter and the Bard casts Courageous Anthem on their turn, the spell won't end when the Fighter finishes their turn (which would be the End of Round 1), nor will it end when the Fighter finishes their 2nd turn (which would be the End of Round 2). Per the rules on durations, it will end at the beginning of the Bard's turn on Round 2.
This is expressly shown here and here. Delay has to use different wording because it is taking you out of the initiative order, but the intent is clear, when they mean "a full round" they mean "when your pre-delay initiative would come around again". Because that's how all round based tracking works in PF2e.
|
|
That's... exactly the same. Worse if you have any ongoing effects going. There's no benefit over just delaying the round at all.I can't see any benefit in delaying until your next turn at all. In any game scenario I try to construct where you have a fighter friend in melee and you want to cast an AoE at the end of their turn, there is always a way to do that which doesn't involve delaying until your current initiative spot in the next round. The scenario I constructed above was really more about showing you can delay until your original initiative spot in the next round without technically doing a single delay for an entire round. Why would you ever want to do that? Nothing springs to mind.
Well no. That's why I said there wasn't. You're the one who suggested it as an exploit.
But that's... very specific. That's not the only situation where you'd Delay.It's something that might come up if you were Delaying because you were waiting for something that never happened, perhaps. You're trying to talk the enemies down, so you give them a chance to stop fighting by holding your turn until they attack. They never do. You Delay for a round, although at that point you probably move out of Initiative.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It absolutely means the start of your next turn. If you Delay an entire round, then it's just your next turn.
You generally don't want you do that, but here's what happens if you do.
And the round duration on cloak of colors is for the condition, not the spell. That's not created on the caster's turn, so it wouldn't tick down on their turn.
That can be an issue with reactions, though, sure. (...why can you Dismiss delay consequences?)
Remember, once you Delay, you aren't actually in the initiative order at all. Delay doesn't force you to return at the start of your next turn, because for you to start your turn, you have to be in the initiative order.
And for Cloak of Colors, the duration rules don't actually care on what turn the effect was created, only who created the effect. This wording was likely on purpose to make things easier to track. But I would have preferred if the spell inflicted blinded or stunned "until the start of the attacker's next turn."
Not trying to throw fuel into the fire, but a lot of this confusion is cleared up (IMO) by readying an action. That way you don't have to sacrifice your current turn entirely, but you still get the effect you desire, which seems to be "after my fighter guy goes, I drop a fireball." Or whatever.
Ah, yes. That would put a damper on most spells (I assume single action spells would be OK, and some hexes).
I assume single action spells would be OK, and some hexes.
Yes.
I suspect "activities" was supposed to be a catchall term for things that took more than a single action early on in the game's design. However, in practice "action" and "activity" have been used interchangeably in several places throughout the rulebooks, regardless of number of actions required.
So I wouldn't place too much weight on differentiating the terms.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's all well and good until you find yourself stuck with a GM that won't let you use Intercept Attack to cover a friend from an unseen distant sniper because he hasn't called for an Initiative roll yet.
Guardian reactions aren't guaranteed if you haven't yet rolled for Initiative.
In PF2, there are no surprise rounds, so if your GM is having someone make an attack roll without rolling initiative, they are already operating outside of the rules of the game. The sniper should be making a stealth based initiative check to see if they can get their shot off before anyone notices that something isn't right.
In PF2, there are no surprise rounds, so if your GM is having someone make an attack roll without rolling initiative, they are already operating outside of the rules of the game. The sniper should be making a stealth based initiative check to see if they can get their shot off before anyone notices that something isn't right.That's all well and good until you find yourself stuck with a GM that won't let you use Intercept Attack to cover a friend from an unseen distant sniper because he hasn't called for an Initiative roll yet.
Guardian reactions aren't guaranteed if you haven't yet rolled for Initiative.
A lot of GMs don't seem to be aware of that, sadly. :(
A lot of GMs don't seem to be aware of that, sadly. :(In PF2, there are no surprise rounds, so if your GM is having someone make an attack roll without rolling initiative, they are already operating outside of the rules of the game. The sniper should be making a stealth based initiative check to see if they can get their shot off before anyone notices that something isn't right.That's all well and good until you find yourself stuck with a GM that won't let you use Intercept Attack to cover a friend from an unseen distant sniper because he hasn't called for an Initiative roll yet.
Guardian reactions aren't guaranteed if you haven't yet rolled for Initiative.
Some (myself included) simply don't like that change.
And I still contend that a guardian, unaware of the threat (because they didn't beat the perception) shouldn't be able to react to the sniper's shot.
It does make an certain amount of sense that an enemy the guardian isn't aware can make an attack that can't be intercepted.
Some (myself included) simply don't like that change.
Agreed. It just feels awkward in play so we handle it in a way that works for us.
And I still contend that a guardian, unaware of the threat (because they didn't beat the perception) shouldn't be able to react to the sniper's shot.
RAW the only way they can't is if they can't act (aka: stunned/unconscious), or an attack is coming before initiative is rolled, which as was mentioned is already a house rule situation. I'd still let them do it though, because the intent of the rules (and the RAW) is that Guardians are extraordinarily good defenders and are always ready to respond to an attack.
Not letting them do that is a nerf to something that is part of the class theme, so I wouldn't do it even with my house ruling how stealth attacks work. I just say "if the Guardian is awake and can act, they're always able to use Guardian reactions, full stop." That's consistent with the intent of the class when applied to my house rule.
Some (myself included) simply don't like that change.Agreed. It just feels awkward in play so we handle it in a way that works for us.
And I still contend that a guardian, unaware of the threat (because they didn't beat the perception) shouldn't be able to react to the sniper's shot.RAW the only way they can't is if they can't act (aka: stunned/unconscious), or an attack is coming before initiative is rolled, which as was mentioned is already a house rule situation. I'd still let them do it though, because the intent of the rules (and the RAW) is that Guardians are extraordinarily good defenders and are always ready to respond to an attack.
Not letting them do that is a nerf to something that is part of the class theme, so I wouldn't do it even with my house ruling how stealth attacks work. I just say "if the Guardian is awake and can act, they're always able to use Guardian reactions, full stop." That's consistent with the intent of the class when applied to my house rule.
I agree that your interpretation is valid, and that what I'm saying falls into house rule territory, but I still personally think it makes sense. While I agree guardians should be exceptional defenders, I do think there needs to be some occasions in which they can still be surprised and unable to defend.
And to say more generally, I generally wouldn't let players use reactions in response to things they're not aware of. In many cases it doesn't matter, but this is one where it does. Explicitly speaking, the guardian doesn't require awareness of an attack to intercept it.
And to be clear, I'm not saying the guardian can't use their guardian reactions at all. If there is a sniper that the guardian spots, they can absolutely use their reaction. What I'm saying is, if the sniper shoots and that's what initiates combat, and the guardian had no awareness of the sniper until the shot, the way I'm going to run things is not to allow the guardian to intercept that shot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, for sure. It definitely makes sense. Just different takes on the way to house rule this area, not a criticism of your version. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, for sure. It definitely makes sense. Just different takes on the way to house rule this area, not a criticism of your version. :)
Yeah, simply slightly different "visions" for what the game should look like. And as long as players are on board, a little variation like this should be encouraged (IMO).