Can Delay slot you in between two characters acting on the same initiative count?

[Vegepygmy]

Here's the thing, once combat starts, I ignore the actual initiative number.

That is wise. The actual "initiative count" has no significance beyond establishing the order in which the combatants will take their turns. None.

 

[Water Bob]

Main PC: (on his turn) "I delay."
PC A: (acts on his turn)
Main PC: "I act now."
Main PC: (takes his turn, fixes his new initiative count at this point)
PC B: (acts on his turn)

Obviously, we have an interpretatin problem here. But, I do see where you get what you're saying.

I would argue that the main PC cannot go between A and B if the nish modifiers don't reflect that.

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

Obviously, we have an interpretatin problem here. But, I do see where you get what you're saying.

I would argue that the main PC cannot go between A and B if the nish modifiers don't reflect that.

Yeah. One interpretation, the more literal and therefore more RAW is the one you're holding, and so I can't disagree with you holding it. From what I understand of your approach, Initiative order is maintained throughout the combat as the numbers used to determine turn sequence. The line in the Initiative SRD that reads, "Characters act in order, counting down from highest result to lowest." seems to favor that interpretation.

@Vegepygmy and I are seeing Initiative order as a first step that is used and then dropped once turn sequence is figured. The following line from the Initiative SRD that reads, "In every round that follows, the characters act in the same order..." suggests to me that initiative scores are no longer paid attention to once order is established.

I see no difficulty with your interpretation @Water Bob , and if you were my DM I'd have no leg to stand on to disagree with you. (p.s. I'd probably have a lot of fun with you as my DM!)

Which is probably why the OP made this thread in the first place, because it could be ruled either way.

 

[kitcik]

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. You act normally (that is you can choose from the menu of actions noted in Part One) when you finally decide to act. When you finally take your delayed action, your initiative number changes, as noted on page 160 of the Player's Handbook. If you delay until another creature's turn, you can choose to act either before or after that creature acts, but of you choose to act before the creature, you must do so before you know what that creature will do.

This.

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

This.

Hurray for additional, clarifying wording in rules!

What is the Rules Archive that you've cited?

 

[Water Bob]

To me, that Rules Archive post does not address the issue. What I'm reading is this: If a character with a 17 initiative throw delays for another with initiative 11, then the PC can act on 12 or 10 (going either before or after the character on count 11).

I don't think that Rules Archive quote addresses characters with tied initiative. I think the tied inititive rule address that.





To support what I'm saying here, I turn to the Rules Compendium, which has more specific wording about the Delay.

Delaying is useful if you need to see
what others are going to do before
deciding what to do yourself. The
price you pay is the change in initiative
count and lost time. You never
get back the time you spend waiting
to see what’s going to happen.
While delaying, you can’t interrupt
anyone else’s turn the way you can​

with a readied action.

Notice that Delay means a change in your initiative count.

By choosing to delay, you take no action
on your regular turn, then act
normally on whatever initiative count
you decide. You voluntarily change
your initiative count for the rest of the
combat. You can specify this new initiative
count, or you can just wait until​

a certain time and act then.

You voluntarily change your your initiative count. You can specify the new initiative count early, or you can just wait and go on that initiative count when it comes up.

When you act, your initiative count
changes to the one on which you acted.
Your initiative count is lower for
the rest of the combat if you acted later
in the same round during which you
decided to delay. If you take your delayed
action in the round after the one
during which you chose to delay, but
before your original initiative count
comes up, your initiative count rises
to the one on which you acted for the
rest of the combat. You don’t get the
turn that would have occurred on your​

original initiative count.

Note how you can raise your inititave count if you wait a round to do so.



Note that the Delay is all about initiative count. Thus, if two other characters are going on count 11, and you delay until count 11, then the three of you have tied initiative. And, to break the tie, you use the tied initiative rule (where you first compare total initiative mod, and if that doesn't break the tie, then you roll dice).


I believe this is the correct way to play the rule by RAW.

 

[Vegepygmy]

I would argue that the main PC cannot go between A and B if the nish modifiers don't reflect that.

What would be the purpose of such a rule?

 

[Water Bob]

What would be the purpose of such a rule?

The rule exists, so there is a purpose, and that is to break ties when initiative counts are the same.

 

[Vegepygmy]

The rule exists, so there is a purpose, and that is to break ties when initiative counts are the same.

No, not that rule. The rule (as you interpret it) that PC C (init mod +2) can act between PC A (init mod +0) and PC B (init mod +1) if A goes on initiative count 12 and B goes on initiative count 11, but not if A and B both go on initiative count 11.

What purpose is served by complicating initiative order that way and necessitating the tracking of initiative counts (and not merely order) beyond the start of combat? Doesn't it strike you as totally arbitrary?

Also, consider the Ready action.

Your initiative result changes. For the rest of the encounter, your initiative result is the count on which you took the readied action, and you act immediately ahead of the character whose action triggered your readied action.

How would you handle the following scenario?

PC A (init mod +0) and PC B (init mod +1) are both scheduled to act on initiative count 11. C (init mod +2) acts on initiative count 12, and Readies to cast a spell if A fires his bow. On initiative count 11, B acts first (having the higher init mod), and then A fires his bow, triggering C's readied action.

C casts his spell, and now his initiative result changes to 11. For the rest of the encounter, he acts immediately ahead of A (the character whose action triggered his readied action). But Water Bob's rule says that A, B and C all act on initiative count 11, and since they are "tied," they can only act in order of their initiative modifiers.

Thus, C (init mod +2) must act immediately before B (init mod +1), who goes before A. C cannot act immediately ahead of A, even though the Ready rules specifically state that he does.

Now, I realize one can argue that in this particular case, the specific Ready rule trumps the general tied-initiative-count rule, but really...isn't it obvious that "initiative count" was never intended to function the way Water Bob is claiming?

 

[Water Bob]

The rule (as you interpret it) that PC C (init mod +2) can act between PC A (init mod +0) and PC B (init mod +1) if A goes on initiative count 12 and B goes on initiative count 11, but not if A and B both go on initiative count 11.

I don't interpret it that way.

PC A rolls 17 nish. (PC A has init mod +0)
PC B rolls 11 nish. (PC B has init mod +1)
PC C rolls 11 nish. (PC C has init mod +2)



1. PC A can delay to 12 and go before both PC B and PC C.

2. PC A can delay to 10 and go after both PC B and PC C.

3. PC A can delay to 11, but if he does, the order will be same as if he delayed to 10. The 11 count order will be: PC C, then PC B, then PC A.

According to the Initiative Tie rule.

What purpose is served by complicating initiative order that way and necessitating the tracking of initiative counts (and not merely order) beyond the start of combat? Doesn't it strike you as totally arbitrary?

I'm not considering it one way or the other. I didn't say that I liked the rule. I'm just telling you what I see when I read the rule.

Also, consider the Ready action.

The Ready Action specifically states that a character can interrupt another character's turn. Thus, if PC A wanted to go between PC B and PC C, the Ready Action would be the answer, not the Delay.

Now, I realize one can argue that in this particular case, the specific Ready rule trumps the general tied-initiative-count rule, but really...isn't it obvious that "initiative count" was never intended to function the way Water Bob is claiming?

Yes to the first part and no to the second part.

If your read the Ready Action, it specifically states, "....the readied action interrupts the other character".

The Delay action specifically states, "...nor can he interrupt anyone else's action. If he wants to interrupt or pre-empt an action, see the Ready action."

You see, you're thinking the Delay and the Ready have the same job. But, it's clear here that they are two different actions aimed at different results.

So, yes, I do posit that "initiative count" was intended to function as I claim above.

Delay simply changes the character's initiative count.

Ready allow the character to actually interrupt another character's turn.