[PF] Can you choose to delay when unable to perform actions?

[Keneth]

Even though delaying is listed as a special initiative action, it's actually a conscious decision not to perform any actions and just wait.

Now let's assume this hypothetical situation: Your character normally acts on initiative count 20, and during the course of a battle he gets stunned or otherwise incapacitated (but not knocked unconscious) for 1 round by an enemy on initiative count 10.

On the next round, your character obviously cannot act (or at least not fully) on initiative count 20 due to the debilitating condition. The question is, can you choose to delay with your turn until after initiative count 10 when the condition expires and take your full actions then?

[TuggyNE]

Hmm, in the 3.5 RAW thread a very similar question was asked and answered a week ago. I think the same reasoning should apply here; if you can take purely mental actions, you can delay. Stunning, though, might prevent that.

[Stux]

That may be doable RAW, but I probably wouldn't allow it as a DM, as I don't think it is RAI. If you are stunned for a round you are supposed to to lose a turn, not half a turn.

I would at the least rule that if an effect prevents you from taking actions then you cannot use Delay, even though it is not listed as taking an action to perform.

I could see this kind of shenanigan pissing off a DM, and that is rarely a good idea :smalltongue:

[Keneth]

If you are stunned for a round you are supposed to to lose a turn, not half a turn.

You're still actually stunned for a full round, taking all the penalties and preventing you from taking actions. I don't see why choosing to lose your place in the initiative order so you can act later in a round when the effect dissipates would be against RAI.

[TuggyNE]

That may be doable RAW, but I probably wouldn't allow it as a DM, as I don't think it is RAI. If you are stunned for a round you are supposed to to lose a turn, not half a turn.

Well, if you want to get technical, you could also consider that you're supposed to lose a turn, not a turn and a half. Stunning, for example, makes it impossible to make AoOs or take immediate actions, and penalizes AC, so its effects off-turn are pretty substantial.

Also, Delay's effects are felt throughout the rest of the combat, since you continue to act at a lower initiative.


I would at the least rule that if an effect prevents you from taking actions then you cannot use Delay, even though it is not listed as taking an action to perform.

You mean, it's listed as specifically not taking an action.

[jokeaccount]

The abuse we're trying to pull off here is this:

I act on ini count 20. My teammate on 15 and the enemy on 10.
Enemy controls me. Next round on ini 20 i cannot act. I decide to delay my turn until after my teammate. On ini 15 teammate plays and casts dispel on me. Now i can play on ini 14 effectively dodging the crowd control spell.

[Keneth]

Assuming you have the capacity to delay, I don't see anything wrong with that. The fact that the teammate just happens to be between you and the enemy in the initiative order is irrelevant. If he was before you or after the enemy, he could have done that regardless, so why would one be ok and the other not? You're not really dodging anything, you're dealing with it after being under the effect for almost an entire round and then dropping your initiative count substantially.

[jokeaccount]

I had a hunch it was about something like this. No it is not the same:

-I play first. I atk enemy for X dmg. He survives.
-My teammate on his turn starts singing (always a bard on the team).
-The enemy polymorphs me.
Next round:
-I cant do anything. Lose round
-Bard dispels me
-Enemy plays casts horrid wilting
-TPK

In your case: (round 2)
-I delay
-Bard dispels
-I play my delayed turn. Atk enemy and kill him
-End battle. No tpk and win.

As you can see totally different outcome

[Keneth]

I'm not saying it's not gonna have a different outcome, I'm saying both examples are equivalent, and therefore it's not an abuse of rules. :smallconfused:

You're proposing one lose an entire turn, when nothing in the rules actually states that you do. You simply can't act while under the effect of certain conditions or spells, but there's nothing stopping you from delaying as long as you have the mental capacity to do so. If the enemy uses a compulsion effect on you, or if you lose your mental facilities because of a failed Will save on a baleful polymorph spell, then that's a different matter, of course.

[Stux]

Also, Delay's effects are felt throughout the rest of the combat, since you continue to act at a lower initiative.

Well... sort of. Except you can delay until anywhere you like in the initiative order of the next round. So this is what could easily happen:

20 - enemy 1's turn, you get stunned for 1 round
15 - enemy 2's turn
10 - enemy 3's turn
5 - your turn, delay
Next round
20 - enemy 1's turn, stun wears off
19 - you take your delayed turn, ahead of enemy 2 and enemy 3

You got stunned for 1 round, but hardly missed out on anything. Obviously this is subjective, but to me this seems grossly against the intended use of the ability.

[Keneth]

You may not have missed much by choosing to delay, but you were still stunned for an entire round, which is what the rules say happens to you. Forcing you to wait for almost an entire round after the stun wears off, simply because of your place in the initiative order, is what's actually ridiculous.

[Addi]

How is this against the rules? I guess either RAI and RAW should be pretty clear here.
Okay, there are some flaws in the round-based combat system, but if you wanted to attack and got interrupted - I guess the first thing you're trying to do if the effect wears off is to attack. And as long as you are aware of your surroundings nothing keeps you from doing so.

Even if the opponent acted on a 19 and now you're delaying on a 19, too - you lost one complete action and the opponent is one round worth of actions ahead of you for the entire rest of the combat.
Edit: This - without delaying - would cost you effectively two rounds. That's surely not RAI.

In the middle of combat it doesn't matter that much anymore if you're acting on an Initiative of 34 or one of -2. The second character is one round behind and probably won't get back the lost time.

...just my two cents...

[jokeaccount]

You could argue that this is raw but imo its just another miscalculation by the creators. It was intended to work this way and a DM shouldnt allow you to do that. As stated in my previous post in your case you avoid death where you shouldn't have. It is reason enough to be considered against the rules. When you get cced and your turn comes you lose it. That's the whole point. With your method you dont lose an action you just lose the order in which you perform.

[Stux]

How is this against the rules?

I'm not saying it's against the rules, just that I don't like the rules here :smalltongue:

My group just doesn't use Delay.

[Addi]

...in your case you avoid death where you shouldn't have.
From the other perspective: In yor example you die where you shouldn't have.


...you just lose the order in which you perform.
No, you can not act an entire round, what brings all the drawbacks of not being able to act. And you act later for the rest of the combat, what means that you take hostile actions before your own action equal to the number of opponents acting earlier now times the remaining rounds.

Edit:

I'm not saying it's against the rules, just that I don't like the rules here :smalltongue:

My group just doesn't use Delay.

That's an understandable point of view :)
My group uses this rule a lot and it gives a lot of tactical opportunities.

[TuggyNE]

Well... sort of. Except you can delay until anywhere you like in the initiative order of the next round. So this is what could easily happen:

20 - enemy 1's turn, you get stunned for 1 round
15 - enemy 2's turn
10 - enemy 3's turn
5 - your turn, delay
Next round
20 - enemy 1's turn, stun wears off
19 - you take your delayed turn, ahead of enemy 2 and enemy 3

You got stunned for 1 round, but hardly missed out on anything. Obviously this is subjective, but to me this seems grossly against the intended use of the ability.

You're mis-accounting things. When you delay in this fashion, you lose an entire round, and gain back the initiative difference in the next round. But that round's lost actions are never regained; every subsequent round the actions you would have taken in that round are merely taken sooner, but you have one less round of actions taken.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Is the effect of being stunned/dazed by another target ended on your initiative? I always assumed it ended on the casters Initiative.

E.G.1
Round 1
Initiative 21: Caster casts Daze at Fighter. Fighter is dazed for 1 round.
Initiative 20: Fighter is unable to act

Round 2
Initiative 21: Daze Effect ends. Fighter is able to act
Initiative 20: Fighter Acts

E.G.2
Round 1
Initiative 20: Fighter Acts
Initiative 14: Caster casts Daze at Fighter. Fighter is dazed for 1 round.

Round 2
Initiative 20: Fighter is unable to act
Initiative 14: Daze Effect ends. Fighter is able to actLooking at that, I say that the fighter should, by RAI be able to delay his action. He's already lost behind a turn to every character by the time he acts. All he's doing is acting before the end of a round, at the cost of acting later in future rounds.

To the point about delaying ahead of other characters. I'm not even sure that it's possible to delay into a higher initiative the next round. The PF rules state that you can delay to any initiative, but then state that you change to a lower initiative count, and act later in the same round as you delayed. Relevant Text is quoted.


PRD (http://paizo.com/prd/combat.html)
By choosing to delay, you take no action and then act normally on whatever initiative count you decide to act. When you delay, you voluntarily reduce your own initiative result for the rest of the combat. When your new, lower initiative count comes up later in the same round, you can act normally. You can specify this new initiative result or just wait until some time later in the round and act then, thus fixing your new initiative count at that point.

[Stux]

When you delay in this fashion, you lose an entire round, and gain back the initiative difference in the next round. But that round's lost actions are never regained; every subsequent round the actions you would have taken in that round are merely taken sooner, but you have one less round of actions taken.

But acting last in one round is mechanically identical to acting first in the next round. If you act last in round 1, do not act in round 2, then act first in round 3 you have not missed anything, even though you did nothing in round 2. That is the point.

In the example I posted above all that has really happened is you have dropped down the initiative order from acting last in one round to instead acting second in the next round. Assuming more than two individuals in the combat this is in no way the same as losing a round, because the majority of the others have not had a chance to act between when you would have taken your action and where you do take it.

[lsfreak]

I think the problem here is going to be being able to delay in the first place. I, at least, would rule it that because you cannot act on your turn, you cannot choose to delay your action.

[TuggyNE]

But acting last in one round is mechanically identical to acting first in the next round. If you act last in round 1, do not act in round 2, then act first in round 3 you have not missed anything, even though you did nothing in round 2. That is the point.

Irrelevant (and also, I think, wrong, although the reason why is subtle and situational, so I won't go into it). You may or may not have been acting last, but after delaying in this fashion you certainly will not be acting first.

Consider two very similar cases. In each, the combined efforts of your party up to your original initiative point in round 3 have succeeded in reducing the enemy to the point where one good round of attacking will kill them off before they act first in round 4 and hit your party again. In the first case, no stunning or other debuff is applied to you; you act in round 3 at the usual time, finish off the enemy, and celebrate a little. In the second, a stun is applied at the enemy's turn in round 2, you delay from round 2 to round 3, act just after the enemy's turn in round 3, and are unable to act again until after the enemy has acted in round 4, leaving those few crucial HP on them just a little too long, and suffering another round's worth of counterattacks. By definition of this trick, you will always, without exception, lose time in this fashion; there will always be that slippage from acting before the enemy to acting after, and there is no regaining of that tempo.


In the example I posted above all that has really happened is you have dropped down the initiative order from acting last in one round to instead acting second in the next round. Assuming more than two individuals in the combat this is in no way the same as losing a round, because the majority of the others have not had a chance to act between when you would have taken your action and where you do take it.

It's not as much as losing a round, no, nor did I ever say it was. Neither is it losing no time at all, however: the debuff did its job in delaying you and making you more vulnerable for a time.

[jokeaccount]

Im not saying delaying is against the rules. Delaying in order yo get an action in a round in which you shouldnt have is. In my case in 2 rounds you take one action in yours you take two actions. Here is the difference (doesnt matter that you play later it is still 2 actions in 2 rounds). The cc spells were made so that you would lose your action entirely. Nobody cares about the drawbacks the cc has when it is not your turn anyway...

Edit: Obviously the in game time is not continuous. It is cut in rounds. The goal is to be able to act in every round. You shouldnt be looking at the actions of each player individually but on the whole round itself. Acting last in a round or first is completely dofferent

[Thanatosia]

Having a higher intiative roll is supposed to be an advantage. You spend resources and invest in stats to get a better initiative roll. You get penalties to initiative for having bad stats and disadvantages.

The Delay action is there to preserve the advantage in having a higher intitiative. If you would have had an action if your initiative roll was lower, but circumstances are denying it because your action is coming 'too soon' thats exactly what delay is there to do... ensure you have the best of both worlds when it comes to initiative.

You should almost never have to feel 'punished' for having too good an initiative roll.

[Squirrel_Dude]

20 - enemy 1's turn, you get stunned for 1 round
15 - enemy 2's turn
10 - enemy 3's turn
5 - your turn, delay
Next round
20 - enemy 1's turn, stun wears off
19 - you take your delayed turn, ahead of enemy 2 and enemy 3

You got stunned for 1 round, but hardly missed out on anything. Obviously this is subjective, but to me this seems grossly against the intended use of the ability.Actually, I'm going to be more firm in how I would interpret the rules for the delay action than I was previously. Your example can't actually happen by RAW

Delaying your action isn't just going sometime later, it's quite specifically lowering your actual initiative result, so the "your" in this situation could only delay to act on the count of 4, 3, 2, 1, 0, -1... etc. but not any score ≥ 5

You can raise your initiative score by Readying an action, but that can only be a move or a standard action, you lose the rest of your turn, and you wouldn't be raising your iniative by your own choosing.




Edit: Obviously the in game time is not continuous. It is cut in rounds. The goal is to be able to act in every round. You shouldnt be looking at the actions of each player individually but on the whole round itself. Acting last in a round or first is completely dofferent Don't even try to make time make any sense in D&D combat. 3.5 manages to have combat take place in an existence where time manages to be cyclical, linear, and in which all characters are acting simultaneously.

For the purpose of effects that last "round/leve" AFAIK, those rounds start and end on the initiative count of the person that started them. Meaning that a character who delays his action to act within the 6 seconds of the combat round is actually giving up his action, as he would under the spell, to act in the round that he is prevented from acting in by the spell.



My brain hurts.

[TuggyNE]

The Delay action is there to preserve the advantage in having a higher intitiative. If you would have had an action if your initiative roll was lower, but circumstances are denying it because your action is coming 'too soon' thats exactly what delay is there to do... ensure you have the best of both worlds when it comes to initiative.

Well, it's a compromise. It's worse than acting first in most cases, but better than not acting at all, and occasionally acting later in all rounds is worthwhile. It's designed to be situational, however, and this just happens to be the sort of situation it works well in to cushion an otherwise devastating effect.


Actually, I'm going to be more firm in how I would interpret the rules for the delay action than I was previously. Your example can't actually happen by RAW

Delaying your action isn't just going sometime later, it's quite specifically lowering your actual initiative result, so the "your" in this situation could only delay to act on the count of 4, 3, 2, 1, 0, -1... etc. but not any score ≥ 5

Hmm, you're right, I don't know why I didn't see that earlier.

So in that case, delaying can only act when you're ahead in a single round, so it's clearer that you're giving up an advantage permanently in order to gain some temporary benefit.

[Keneth]

Im not saying delaying is against the rules. Delaying in order yo get an action in a round in which you shouldnt have is.

Show me a single instance in the rules that states you're supposed to lose your actions in any of the cases proposed above (stun, paralysis, nausea, etc.). The rules are simple, if you get stunned, you take all the listed penalties and cannot act while stunned. As far as the rules are concerned, you can take your turn on your initiative count or choose to delay. If you take your turn while you're stunned, your turn happens normally and you are prevented from taking any actions. If you delay to a point where you are no longer stunned and take your turn then, you can act normally. You've paid your dues by being stunned for an entire round (or however long the duration lasted), losing your actions is not part of any of the effects, and it would be unfair to demand it from your players.


Also guys, please don't read only half of the rules if you're gonna argue about semantics:


If you take a delayed action in the next round, before your regular turn comes up, your initiative count rises to that new point in the order of battle, and you do not get your regular action that round.

You clearly can delay to a higher initiative count if you choose to forfeit your actions in the previous round.

[Grayson01]

If (in the caseof stunning or any of the take no action debuffs) how can you take a delaying Action if you can't take an action?

[Keneth]

Because delaying is not technically an action, nor does it require an action to perform.

[Stux]

It's not as much as losing a round, no, nor did I ever say it was. Neither is it losing no time at all, however: the debuff did its job in delaying you and making you more vulnerable for a time.

My position is that the advantage you can gain through the meta-gaming manipulation of initiative order through delaying is too much for an ability that everyone automatically has available to them. Yours is that it isn't. That's fine, I guess we have to agree to disagree. Though you are still correct by RAW, so that gives you an advantage :smalltongue:


Delaying your action isn't just going sometime later, it's quite specifically lowering your actual initiative result, so the "your" in this situation could only delay to act on the count of 4, 3, 2, 1, 0, -1... etc. but not any score ≥ 5

This quote from the SRD in the section on delaying is what had me thinking you could delay to a higher position in the subsequent round:

"If you take a delayed action in the next round, before your regular turn comes up, your initiative count rises to that new point in the order of battle, and you do not get your regular action that round."

But re-reading that, I'm not so sure. To do this do you have to lose an additional round? Because if so I'm totally fine with that.

[Squirrel_Dude]

You clearly can delay to a higher initiative count if you choose to forfeit your actions in the previous round.That's weird. I should have read that, but all of the rules text before that implies that you can only delay within a single round, except for that first sentence.

Clearly something you can do, though. Edit: @Stux: No, that's not what it's preventing. It's just preventing you from taking two turns during one round. AKA, you delay from 5 to 19. You can act on 19, but not on 5, too.

[Mojo_Rat]

There is no rule in e game about mental actions in the game. Stun itself says you cant take any actions. Its a negative effects that effectively removes your ability to make decisions. Somehow arguing that delay action which is in the list of actions is not an action is just a bit silly then to support this with descriptions like mental action which i am pretty sure do no5 have a mechanical definition in the rules. But if its there you still cannot do it because stun..... says you can take no action.

[Vasdenjas]

What are Delay and Ready listed under? What's the header?


Special Initiative Actions

No actions allowed. Stop trying to game the system and deal with a lost turn.

[Scow2]

"If you take a delayed action in the next round, before your regular turn comes up, your initiative count rises to that new point in the order of battle, and you do not get your regular action that round."

But re-reading that, I'm not so sure. To do this do you have to lose an additional round? Because if so I'm totally fine with that.That secondary wording means you don't get to act again when your original initiative count rolls around again. It's just like how when you choose to delay to later in the same round it moves your initiative count to the initiative you act on as well (Bleh, the grammar in that sentence is all kinds of screwed up and I can't figure out how to fix it!).

[lsfreak]

What are Delay and Ready listed under? What's the header?

No actions allowed. Stop trying to game the system and deal with a lost turn.

This is absolutely my position as well. You cannot take actions, so you cannot delay.

[Mojo_Rat]

Part of the problem here, is that the OP is using the English term of 'no action' to justify what it means in the game.

In the game, all actons are a standard move swift free or no action. Then the wierd situation of AOO which are never defined within the above structure.

Delay is listed as 'no action' because it does not use one of the main action types of standard swift move free etc.

But Stun removes your ability to make any decisions about your character, If it were a bugs bunny cartoon the victim is now seeing canaries floating around their head.

And after my last post i double checked. There does not appear to be any game definition of 'mental action' I understand what it is in english and how it is normally used in the game. It is just not applicable here.

[Addi]

RAW:
Delaying itself is not an action until you take the action you delayed previously. The "special initiative action" is taken at your new initiative count.
The SRD is pretty clear on this:

By choosing to delay, you take no action and then act normally on whatever initiative count you decide to act.

It's reasonable to assume that a spell with a duration of 1 round is in place for one round. After that the effect of the spell is gone.
It is no action to delay so you can do this while you're stunned. Then you can take the delayed action right after the effect wears off to do whatever you like.



No actions allowed. Stop trying to game the system and deal with a lost turn.

That's no answer that helps to clarify the issue. And then I guess it's important, wat's written under the header, too. The wording "delay (an) action" even implies that there's no action while you're stunned. The action - of course - happens when you're able to do so. And that's called a "delayed action".

RAI:

the caster of the stunning spell acts again, before you can act... mission accomplished
you are stunned for exactly one round with all associated drawbacks
you are behind the caster in initiative for the rest of the encounter
a stunned character suddenly can move again and acts

Looks pretty much intended to me.

[Stux]

I don't think it's as simple as that.

To me, RAI:


After you have performed your rounds worth of actions it takes 6 seconds (the time between your place in the initiative order on this round and that same place in the initiative order on the next round) before you are able to perform actions.
If you are stunned for 1 round there should be an additional 6 seconds before you are able to perform actions, so you shouldn't be able to do anything until at the least that same place in the initiative order as you would have acted, but the round after.


Delay shenanigans undermines this, and that is why I would not allow it.

[Squirrel_Dude]

I don't think it's as simple as that.

To me, RAI:


After you have performed your rounds worth of actions it takes 6 seconds (the time between your place in the initiative order on this round and that same place in the initiative order on the next round) before you are able to perform actions.
If you are stunned for 1 round there should be an additional 6 seconds before you are able to perform actions, so you shouldn't be able to do anything until at the least that same place in the initiative order as you would have acted, but the round after.


Delay shenanigans undermines this, and that is why I would not allow it.Except, they don't undermine the second part. If you delay so that you go after the caster that caused the effect, you would have still waited the six seconds to act. By the time you have acted, the caster will have gone again, and probably done something else nasty to you.

If anything, all delaying does is give the caster the chance to stun-lock that character for the rest of the combat.

[Addi]

After you have performed your rounds worth of actions it takes 6 seconds (the time between your place in the initiative order on this round and that same place in the initiative order on the next round) before you are able to perform actions.

It takes 6 seconds or longer, thanks to delay.

If you are stunned for 1 round there should be an additional 6 seconds before you are able to perform actions, so you shouldn't be able to do anything until at the least that same place in the initiative order as you would have acted, but the round after.
It's an opinion that it should be like this. I see your point and it's dependent on the gaming habits, I guess.


Delay shenanigans undermines this, and that is why I would not allow it.
I see no shenanigans in there, sorry. It's just making good use of the rules, like charging in the surprise round.
I guess it's a different point of view, we have here. :smallsmile:

[Dapple Birch]

I have a question for OP:

Why are you asking this question of the boards instead of your DM?