Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="codo" data-source="post: 8034356" data-attributes="member: 94626">I for one am glad they got rid of the delay action.  I feel like the delay action is one of those rules that is either never used by a group, except in rare circumstances and doesn't really cause problems, or used all of the time and becomes very metagamey and really slows down the game. In both third and forth editions the most optimal way of playing in a lot of situations is having an entire party delay their turns so they can all act at the same time.  Having one side able to make all of their attacks without their enemy getting a change to heal or reposition between attacks is a big advantage.  Having a whole party delay their turns does let all of your enemies attack in a row, but the delay action also lets you jump in at any point in the initiative and heal or move if you need to respond to an attack, and if you don't need to respond to your enemies you get to gang up on them.The DM is then faced with a choice.  He can either ignore the party delay chaining, and give them a big advantage. He can also have the monsters delay their turns to act together, which leads to focus fire, which can easily kill characters. Which can lead to players feeling picked on and hurt feelings. Or the DM can get into a delay war with the players.  "I delay until after your turn." "Well, I delay until after your turn." "Well, I ready an action to attack after you start to attack." etc. This is just the worst kind of metagame nit picky play that isn't really  fun for anyone.While on the surface the delay action makes narrative sense and doesn't seem like it would cause many problems, D&D is a turn based game trying to model real life simultaneous combat.    In the end the delay action just requires to much complexity and overhead to really be worth it.</blockquote>

Verification