Flat-Footed

[kitcik]

Delay is an ''non action'' action, so you would fall.

I agree with this, but it is not your "turn" and you are not allowed to "move." Therefore, by your own logic, you would not fall.

Well. If someone pushes you over a cliff, and at the same time your barbarian friend sees whats gonna happen and rushes to save you...why not? Every action happens at the same time after all...

You have just nerfed lord knows how many spells, effects, feats, etc. You push me, but all my buds can stop me before I have any chance of actually moving? Somehow, this does not seem like the rule.

 

[anest1s]

I agree with this, but it is not your "turn" and you are not allowed to "move." Therefore, by your own logic, you would not fall.

Wait, when it became *my* logic?


I don't think falling is a move action- I think its a ''no action''. Whether it happens on your turn or on someone others its debatable.

You have just nerfed lord knows how many spells, effects, feats, etc. You push me, but all my buds can stop me before I have any chance of actually moving? Somehow, this does not seem like the rule.

Well, where is the rule then? I won't have a problem to follow it if I find it.

 

[Arrowhawk]

Anest1s,

I have a question...why doesn't "Rob" use his 28 Init to move first and Sneak Attack the bad guys? I'm curious why you always wait for a flanking maneuver to present itself? Why Delay...why not just strike first and get the advantage of everyone else being FF'd?

To answer another question you posed awhile back. I think you were asking why should Delay present you with a trade off, particularly in the first round. Let me offer another perspective...

The "trade-off" is the most crucial aspect of what defines an actual decision. If one choice is always superior to the other...then it really isn't a choice. I'm not saying that Delay was unequivocably meant to present you with that choice, if it is meant to be one such as this:

1) Delay - Being FF'd and getting a Full Round action with no trigger, or

2) Ready - not being FF'd, forced to declare a trigger, and only getting a partial action later.

...neither one of those is universally superior to the other. So the better you are at evaluating the trade-offs given your situation, the more you are rewarded as player for figuring out which one to use.

Obviously not everything is meant to be a decision. Sometimes a game doesn't want you to choose and may simply be offering you a reward or forcing you down a path. But when it does, the only way to make the decision meaningful is to present trade-offs or consequences. That's my take on it.

EDIT:
To address your "first round" trade-off question...consider this:

In the first round, a Delay leaves you FF'd. After the first round, you are no longer run that risk. Compare that to Ready, in which you avoid the FF statuts in the first round....but in later rounds, that is no longer a benefit. So in essence BOTH options are changed. The Ready action becomse less attractive and the perceived cost is higher after the first round because you no longer need to avoid being FF'd. Likewise, Delay no longer leaves you exposed so it is a more attractive option.

Strictly in regards to being FF"d, one might say that:
Delay is less attractive in the First round, but more attractive in later rounds. Ready is more attractive in the First round, but less attractive in later rounds.

Also consider that in most cases, you are only going to use Delay or Ready once or twice in combat. Both lower your init order for the entire combat and you may not have any lower to go after your first use of either. So you really need to think about which one you want to use, the first time you use it.

EDIT: EDIT:
And this would be in contrast to my previous notion that Delay and Ready were conceived wholly independent of each other. From a game design perspective, I think it makes more sense that they were intended to provide a player with two options, neither of which was superior to the other. Obviously that's an opinion.

 

[Arrowhawk]

Delay is an ''non action'' action, so you would fall.

Not sure I follow. The Delay itself is the "nonaction." That's not the same as saying "you can take a non action." But whatever...forget I responded to this.

Well. If someone pushes you over a cliff, and at the same time your barbarian friend sees whats gonna happen and rushes to save you...why not? Every action happens at the same time after all...

Guess what? You can do this. But....your buddy Conan has to have had a higher Initiative than the guy doing the pushing. AND Conan has to use the Ready action and declared the trigger of moving to catch you if someone pushes you off.

Guess what whappens when the DM hears the characters are prepared for this...or the Players hear the DM is ready for this? One of the real downsides of the Ready acton is that if you declare your trigger to the DM or the DM to the players, the opposing side will have trouble not metagaming with that information. "Hmm...maybe I won't rush into the room now that I know someone is going to cut me off from behind as soon as I enter...."

I wonder how many DM's and players right down their trigger on a piece of paper instead of saying it out loud? Not that you wouldn't have a big debate about something written unclearly. "You said "the" monster...this is not "the" monster...this is "a" monster. Believe me.."the" monster hasn't shown up yet...and besides..my thri-keen rejects the idea that he is a monster! He's done loads of community service in the last month."

 

[anest1s]

Anest1s,

I have a question...why doesn't "Rob" use his 28 Init to move first and Sneak Attack the bad guys? I'm curious why you always wait for a flanking maneuver to present itself? Why Delay...why not just strike first and get the advantage of everyone else being FF'd?

They were surprised, the opponents weren't flat footed.

To answer another question you posed awhile back. I think you were asking why should Delay present you with a trade off, particularly in the first round. Let me offer another perspective...

The "trade-off" is the most crucial aspect of what defines an actual decision. If one choice is always superior to the other...then it really isn't a choice. I'm not saying that Delay was unequivocably meant to present you with that choice, if it is meant to be one such as this:

1) Delay - Being FF'd and getting a Full Round action with no trigger, or

2) Ready - not being FF'd, forced to declare a trigger, and only getting a partial action later.

...neither one of those is universally superior to the other. So the better you are at evaluating the trade-offs given your situation, the more you are rewarded as player for figuring out which one to use.

Obviously not everything is meant to be a decision. Sometimes a game doesn't want you to choose and may simply be offering you a reward or forcing you down a path. But when it does, the only way to make the decision meaningful is to present trade-offs or consequences. That's my take on it.

EDIT:
To address your "first round" trade-off question...consider this:

In the first round, a Delay leaves you FF'd. After the first round, you are no longer run that risk. Compare that to Ready, in which you avoid the FF statuts in the first round....but in later rounds, that is no longer a benefit. So in essence BOTH options are changed. The Ready action becomse less attractive and the perceived cost is higher after the first round because you no longer need to avoid being FF'd. Likewise, Delay no longer leaves you exposed so it is a more attractive option.

Strictly in regards to being FF"d, one might say that:
Delay is less attractive in the First round, but more attractive in later rounds. Ready is more attractive in the First round, but less attractive in later rounds.

Also consider that in most cases, you are only going to use Delay or Ready once or twice in combat. Both lower your init order for the entire combat and you may not have any lower to go after your first use of either. So you really need to think about which one you want to use, the first time you use it.

EDIT: EDIT:
And this would be in contrast to my previous notion that Delay and Ready were conceived wholly independent of each other. From a game design perspective, I think it makes more sense that they were intended to provide a player with two options, neither of which was superior to the other. Obviously that's an opinion.

You have a point.
But there are more options than two:
1) Delay - Being FF'd and getting a Full Round action with no trigger, or
2) Ready - not being FF'd, forced to declare a trigger, and only getting a partial action later.
3) Total Defense - Lose your action, but keep your high initiative and possibly draw some attacks
4) Attack - Lose your sneak attack but at least do something
5) Other option - whatever

I just feel that the 1) and 2) are too weak compared to the other options. They are one step behind every other option available. Ready is very situational, so it may worth it - but it will worth it if used when needed, not as a cheap partial Delay. Delay on the other hand just makes you play later, and you pay that privilege by having to play later every turn. Why to make it even worse, when other options are still there?

I mean, except from doing something and waiting for something else to happen (Ready Action) you should be able to wait a moment to see what everyone else will do before you strike with all your might (Delay), all that in-game.

After all, if you had rolled initiative 2+ rounds before, and you just did nothing on your turns, you wouldn't be flat footed. I see it like that, except that you do nothing on the first half-sec of your turn.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

As I see it, a character who rolls high on his initiative and gets to act first is still acting first, period, even if he decides to "delay." Delaying on its own is an action, if extremely minor. Not acting first in a round has its own drawbacks: namely not getting to be the first in the round to influence the course of the rest of the round, including later rounds. This is another tradeoff. Being Flat-Footed until the chosen later time is counter-intuitive to the fact that the character, no matter delaying, still got a higher initiative roll. The character chooses to act later in each subsequent round, so not being FF is a fair tradeoff in my eyes.

About the whole flanking thing: A rogue's Sneak Attack requires the target be denied its Dex bonus OR flanked. Flat-Footed denies the Dex bonus, thus a Rogue going first in initiative can still make an SA against an applicable target. Regular Uncanny Dodge prevents losing one's Dex bonus, thus a character with UD needs to be flanked by a Rogue in order for SA to work. A character with Improved Uncanny Dodge has an even stronger defense since he can't be flanked except by a Rogue of four levels higher. If I were a Rogue or other class with SA, I'd most definitely use that first opportunity. Improved Initiative is a solid feat choice for that reason. Even so, a Rogue would do well to invest in a Warning or Eager item to make sure surprises don't happen.

On the topic of falling: From what I gather by the rules, if an opponent forces your character to fall the "action" is started on the opponent's turn but is resolved on the character's turn. This would allow Feather Fall for example. If an ally came up in between the two initiatives, he could run up and try to catch his falling ally. My best guess is it'd require either a Climb check or a Balance check.

 

[anest1s]

Not sure I follow. The Delay itself is the "nonaction." That's not the same as saying "you can take a non action." But whatever...forget I responded to this.

The fall happens instantly...however it happened at the end of the monsters turn. If the victim falls instantly, then on the beginning of everyone else it is already down the cliff. So it happens instantly at the beginning of the victims turn, or at the end of the attackers turn? Considering that they are happening at the same time, it feels strange to rule that he is already down.

However I suspect that thats how it should work by the rules (I just can't find it anywhere )

Is there a limit on how many Immediate actions you can have in one round?

Guess what? You can do this. But....your buddy Conan has to have had a higher Initiative than the guy doing the pushing. AND Conan has to use the Ready action and declared the trigger of moving to catch you if someone pushes you off.

Guess what whappens when the DM hears the characters are prepared for this...or the Players hear the DM is ready for this? One of the real downsides of the Ready acton is that if you declare your trigger to the DM or the DM to the players, the opposing side will have trouble not metagaming with that information. "Hmm...maybe I won't rush into the room now that I know someone is going to cut me off from behind as soon as I enter...."

I wonder how many DM's and players right down their trigger on a piece of paper instead of saying it out loud? Not that you wouldn't have a big debate about something written unclearly. "You said "the" monster...this is not "the" monster...this is "a" monster. Believe me.."the" monster hasn't shown up yet...and besides..my thri-keen rejects the idea that he is a monster! He's done loads of community service in the last month."

I don't know about that. If the players can guess my next move then it is so because I wanted them to...so I wouldn't metagame into not doing it

And what kind of DM announces his Ready Action to the players?

For the last part... DM vs players= DM wins...so not a real problem.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

Is there a limit on how many Immediate actions you can have in one round?

An Immediate action uses up the Swift action for the round, meaning only one per round. To quote the http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#immediateActionsSRD

Using an immediate action on your turn is the same as using a swift action, and counts as your swift action for that turn. You cannot use another immediate action or a swift action until after your next turn if you have used an immediate action when it is not currently your turn (effectively, using an immediate action before your turn is equivalent to using your swift action for the coming turn). You also cannot use an immediate action if you are flat-footed.

Something to note though is the Chain Spell metamagic works on Immediate spells.

 

[Greenfield]

The entire question highlights the artificial nature of turn-based games.

12 people each take their actions, functionally one after another, each ostensibly taking six seconds, and yet the entire sequence takes only six seconds in total.

It's an inherent flaw in the mechanics of all such games, yet I can't think of any way to change it. Truly simultaneous actions would be impossible for any human being to manage, as a DM. In the real world we call it "the fog of war", and it's a rare person who can keep their head and their focus during the chaos of close combat.

In game, we're supposed to be those rare people, the exceptional ones, the heroes and villains of the scene.

Outside of the game world though, we get to pick at, and make fun of, the odd rule mechanics used to impose order on what is essentially contained madness.

Welcome to D&D!

 

[Arrowhawk]

you should be able to wait a moment to see what everyone else will do before you strike with all your might (Delay), all that in-game.

Given Skips use of "put off your turn," it's possible that's exactly what they meant it to do.

Conversely, the RAW's use of "lower your initiative result" would suggests you don't have the option to just hang out and act when you feel like it. Instead, we'll just say you rolled a 2 instead of 28....in fact, the game says you can explicitly state what you want your new "count/number" to be.

I would agree with the general sentiment that it seems like you should just be able to wait till you're ready to act....but why wouldn't that just be a foregoing of your turn? Continuing that thought...I might also agree that the game says, your moment of indecision costs you the opportunity to act...you're not flat footed, but you did nothing. Thus the game's definition of "Inaction" in the SRD. In other words, it wouldn't seem legal to have your character wait till the very end of a six second turn....then do all the things you would normally do in six seconds. Why is that different than actually rolling a lower Init? Because a lower Init would mean you're still FF'd. This could be specifically why the Ready action is considered a Standard Action. To penalize your character for becomeing aware earlier in the round.

So your in-game options would be: 1) You act; 2) You prepare to act; or 3) You do nothing. Delay would then be a metagame option to simply swap out your roll for something lower. But I freely admit that Skip deciding to suddenly define Delay specifically as a "nonaction" moves it out of the metagame-scape and squarely into the character-scape. There would be no need to do this if it were strictly metagame. Of course this assumes Skip is even thinking about metagame versus game. I could still see Skip saying we aren't removing the FF status if you Delay under the same tortured logic (and need to empower Sneak Attack) that one loses a "bonus" to Dex, while a penalty still applies.

Round and round we go....

Thanks Skip. Next time why don't you just poke my eyes out and I'll have an easier time of figuring out these rules.