Flat-Footed

[Arrowhawk]

Delay: Delay is a nonaction you use to put off your turn until a point in the initiative order that's more favorable to you.

This is a change to how Delay is described in the original source material and it certainly muddies the waters.

Skip has changed the definition of Delay to exclude anything about voluntarily lower the "result." To "put off your turn" takes it farther from a metagame decision and closer to a character decision, but not unequivocably. If you change how a rule is written and you change the words used in articulating it...that will often change what it means and how it is interpreted. It's odd there's nothing about whether that eliminates the FF status...because that's the biggest question.

The way this is written, given with their deciding to create a "nonaction" it's still not clear whether this constitutes a condition to eliminate FF.

While the FF rule says when he "may act," I wouldn't be surprised to hear Skip say Delay still doesn't eliminate FF.

The only caveat is that even under this new definition, your choice is quantized. In other words, you can't act upon your character becomeing aware of something...you can only act based on the new Init number you choose. This still comes off as a metagame process.

You'll note that staying on a horse as result of a DC check is another "nonaction" and I'm pretty sure taking the nonactivity before your Init does not stop you from being FF'd before your Init turn came up.

With the WotC respone, I'd throw my hands up in the air and say I'm not sure whether a Delay is definitely an activity or qualifies as a decision not to act that would allow you to avoid FF'd. IMO, the WotC answer makes it ambiguous.

 

[JamesonCourage]

You really want to ride this train?

Let's go. (Of note: I'm not sure why you're text sizes are randomly in your post, or why they're messing with my text size outside of your quotes, but I really don't feel like messing with it at the moment [or probably later on]).

So you think they game is telling your character he has -6 in one hand and -10 in the other? Because your charcter is definitely aware of Weapon modifiers and ability modifiers and the amount of xp he has to the decimal. But nah man, that ain't metagaming. I'm sure Rafael Nadal knows just how much XP he needs to get to the next level and how much XP he get from the last tennis match.

The game is dictating that the character takes the penalties, not you. They are using "you" in place of "your character".

Let's look at page 8. PHB

REROLLING​

If your scores are too low, you may scrap them and roll all six scores again. Your scores are considered too low if the sum of your modifiers (before adjustments because of race) is 0 or lower, or if your highest score is 13 or lower.​

​

It's like they use different contexts in different areas of the book

Gee, I didn't know my character was rolling his scores. Because it obviously can't be referring to me as a player or Arrowhawk could possibly be right about the "you" referring to the actual person in the Delay action...can't be having that so we'll just burry our head in the sand and concoct whatever nonsense we can to make sure he isn't correct.

Now if I my character can only find some dice to roll...with a 1 Strength.​

I'm yet to see you demonstrate your point. The combat section gives penalties or actions that your character takes. Delay is within the combat section. When the SRD says about Delay, "you take no action" do you mean that you, out of character, take no actions? You cannot do anything as a player? No, it is specifically referencing the character. To that end, if it is referencing the character, there is no reason to believe that the character acts out of initiative differently than normal, unless you twist things to be in your view.

​

It's implicit by virtue of it not telling you when you have to make the determination. Like it's implicit that I can cross the street because the city statutes don't explicitly tell me I cannot cross the street. The Delay action also states, "you take no action."

If you voluntarily lower your Init roll....then your character does not have the option of action until your new Init comes up.

If you want to interpret that as your character voluntarily knowing his Init "result." Be my guest.

It's implicit, huh? The writing is obviously saying "your character takes no actions" not the player. To that end, if the subject of the writing is the character, it seems to be implicitly saying that your character is delaying his actions. There was no shift of subject from character to player within the Delay section I quoted for you.

Except that's not what it states, does it? It says you choose to Delay...and "you take no action." The first precludes the other.

Why? Why does choosing to take no actions preclude not acting? Actions and acting are different things within the game.

You don't "choose" to take no action...you choose to "voluntarily lower your initiative result" and that decision precludes your character's ability to make a decision about acting.

When you delay (a choice), the character's initiative is then altered. You have the order backwards.

You're inferring a choice is made about taking no action when none is offered. Let me put it to you this way...what action could you possible make and still Delay?

Chance to act does not mean the same as taking an action.

None. So if you can't take an action...becauses you chose to Delay, it is sophistry to say that you chose not to take an action.

Except it's implied that your character has chosen to delay, passing on his actions for now rather than act yet.

You never had the option to begin with...because you chose to Delay. The decision to Delay occurs before your character is is given the decision to act. Once you chose to Delay...your character was precluded from acting...."you take no action."

Again, the subject of the Delay quote was obviously the character (as the player can still act, it is obviously not aimed at the player). If the character can therefore choose to delay, he has had the ability to act. He can only decide to act on his initiative (barring explicit exceptions, such as speaking, of which Delay is not one), which brings him out of flat-footed.

Unfortunately, d20 RAW do not offer your character an option to do nothing, not be flat footed, and take an action later in the round. Those three together are precluded by the rules. You get two out of the three. You choose which two you want.


As always, play what you like

You can houserule that, yes. As always, play what you like

 

[kitcik]

I like Delay, but Ready should be written differently AND have a different effect.

Something like:

Ready: Ready is a nonaction that allows you to ready any of the following actions: standard, move or swift. Free actions cannot be readied and any free actions you wish to take during your turn must be taken at the time you declare the ready action (i.e. on your initiative).

This is incorrect, though. The rules specifically state that you can ready a free action.

You just can't take a free action along with a different action that you have readied.

If you ready a free action, the free action ends up costing you the same as a standard action.

Umm "incorrect" ???

As you can see from the text you deleted, I was specifically suggesting a CHANGE in the rules. By definition, a change in the rules cannot follow the rules it is changing... at least last time I checked.

And you wonder why people don't like your posting style...

 

[kitcik]

With the WotC respone, I'd throw my hands up in the air and say I'm not sure whether a Delay is definitely an activity or qualifies as a decision not to act that would allow you to avoid FF'd. IMO, the WotC answer makes it ambiguous.

After 15 pages of thread I say ok to that.

IMHO, this is not a "change" but simply a clarification of what seemingly 99% of us agreed on anyway based on our reading of the original write-up. But that is neither here nor there, just an opinion.

 

[Water Bob]

As you can see from the text you deleted, I was specifically suggesting a CHANGE in the rules.

My mistake then. I read your post and saw you were talking about change, but I thought you were supporting the up-thread comment that a Free Action cannot be Readied.

By definition, a change in the rules cannot follow the rules it is changing... at least last time I checked.

And you wonder why people don't like your posting style...

Pretty snarky for a Moderator, don't you think? Even if you feel like you've been slighted, is a snarky reply how you want ENWorlders to handle that type of thing? Encouraging conflict instead of diffusing it?

Lead by example and all?

 

[JamesonCourage]

Pretty snarky for a Moderator, don't you think? Even if you feel like you've been slighted, is a snarky reply how you want ENWorlders to handle that type of thing? Encouraging conflict instead of diffusing it?

Lead by example and all?

I don't think he's a mod, Water Bob. He's a community supporter -I think that means he kicks $3 a month to the site for some cool features, and to support the site (also a good thing).

 

[Water Bob]

I don't think he's a mod, Water Bob. He's a community supporter -I think that means he kicks $3 a month to the site for some cool features, and to support the site (also a good thing).

Gotcha.

The color on the name threw me off. I'm glad he's not a mod, acting that way.

OK, I like it. Props to you, I was too late.

Note that mine addresses the OP though

Here's another little ditty I wrote, this time to the tune of "Shattered" by the Rolling Stones.



Staggered, staggered.
Down and out he steps and swings
I’m barely standing on my feet
Look at me, I’m in tatters!
I’ve been staggered
Staggered

It’s getting alarming
I'm sure I don't look so charming
Life and loss at this meet and greet
My Adam’s apple
People dressed like armored cans
Combat addicts
Some kind of magic
Staggered

A left and a right and a slam, bam, thank you ma’am.
Look at me, I’m in tatters
I’ve been staggered
Staggered

All this clangy-clinky-clacky-ching-aling about
What’s a matter with me? What’s a matter with you?
This round’s been seeing me in tatters (staggered, staggered)
Swing my glove and swing my axe
Enemy rolls a critical for success, success, success, success
Does it matter? (any more)
I’ve been staggered
Staggered

Ahhhh, look at me, I’m staggered
I’ve been staggered
Yeah, look at me. I’ve been staggered

Pride and joy go out the window
During this round, I’m not my best
Swing and pound while the blood trickles to my feet
And look at me. I’m in tatters, yeah
I’ve been battered, but what does it matter
Does it matter, uh-huh
Does it matter, un-huh, I’ve been shattered

Don’t you know my hit points have been going down, down, down, down, down
To live through this round you must be tough, tough, tough, tough, tough!
You got orcs on the left side
Bugbears up in front
What a mess I’m in. This round’s in tatters, and I’ve been staggered
My brain’s been battered, splattered all over the captain

Uh-huh, this round is for the monster goblins
Go ahead, bite the big one, don’t mind the maggots, huh
Shadoobie, my brain’s been battered
My friends don’t come around with aide
Pitter, patter, go their feet, I'm bitter as they scatter, scatter, scatter, scatter
Pile it up, pile it up high on a platter

I’ve been staggered

 

[irdeggman]

The D&D FAQ makes it clear that you cannot take a Free Action along with a Readied Action. Thus, Arttigne could not yell to his companions, "I've got the rear! Keep moving!" when he is taking his attack throw at an oncoming troll. But, Arttigne could use a free action and say those very words during his Move action, when he was running behind the other PCs.

Actualy he could.

Speak
In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn’t your turn. Speaking more than few sentences is generally beyond the limit of a free action.

 

[kitcik]

My mistake then. I read your post and saw you were talking about change, but I thought you were supporting the up-thread comment that a Free Action cannot be Readied.




Pretty snarky for a Moderator, don't you think? Even if you feel like you've been slighted, is a snarky reply how you want ENWorlders to handle that type of thing? Encouraging conflict instead of diffusing it?

Lead by example and all?

As someone else said, not a mod. In fact, I got threadbanned from the archery thread, even though IMHO I didn't say anything impolite there.

Not so here - I apologize. I was mad at AH and took it out on you. My bad.

 

[kitcik]

Here's another little ditty I wrote, this time to the tune of "Shattered" by the Rolling Stones.

I like that one too!