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

[Vegepygmy]

I don't interpret it that way.

Yes, you do (though you changed the details of my hypothetical). Allow me to demonstrate.

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

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

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

3. A can delay to 11, but if he does, the order will be: A, then B, then C (the same as if he had delayed to 12).

According to the Initiative Tie rule.

Now, let's see how it works if B rolls 12 nish instead.

PC A rolls 17 nish. (A has init mod +2)
PC B rolls 12 nish. (B has init mod +1)
PC C rolls 11 nish. (C has init mod +0)

1. A can delay to 11 and go between B and C (B goes on 12, A goes on 11 before C, and then C goes).

According to the Initiative Tie rule.

See? The order of initiative has not changed: in both hypotheticals, the initial order is A, B, C. The only difference is that in the second hypothetical, B rolled 1 better on his initiative check.

But because he did, A can use the Delay action to take his turn between B and C -- which he cannot do (according to you) if B and C get the same original initiative result.

Does that make any sense to you? Because it doesn't to me. Why should B's original initiative result have any effect on whether A can act immediately before C or not?

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.

Yes, but you say you want to understand the rules better. To understand a rule, it is often helpful to understand the purpose of the rule. "Don't cross the street without looking both ways first" makes little sense unless you know why you're looking. Looking both ways and then stepping out in front of a speeding car may obey the strict letter of the rule, but it completely misses the point.

The initiative rules exist to establish an order of action resolution. The Delay action exists to allow actors to postpone their turn until after someone else's turn. (That's why you can't use it to interrupt someone else's turn). I assert that the rule you see in the text doesn't in fact exist, and as support for my argument I point out that there is no reason for it to exist. You could buttress your argument that it does in fact exist if you could point to some reason for it to exist.

So, what reason is there for it to exist?

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.

You've completely missed my point. It isn't whether you can use a particular action to interrupt another character's turn; it's how the Initiative Tie rule is meant to interact with other rules (such as the Delay rules and the Ready rules).

If the Initiative Tie rule is meant to interact with other rules the way you think, then how do you explain the way it interacts (or fails to interact) with the Ready rules?

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.

No, I'm well aware that they have different purposes. I'll ask you again: how would you resolve the following scenario?

PC A rolls 11 nish (A has init mod +0)
PC B rolls 11 nish (B has init mod +1)
PC C rolls 12 nish (C has init mod +2)

1. On "12," C readies to cast a spell if A fires his bow.
2. On "11," B goes before A.
3. On "11," A fires his bow, triggering C's readied action.

4. On the next round, in what order do A, B and C take their turns?

 

[Water Bob]

Now, let's see how it works if B rolls 12 nish instead.

(snip)

But because he did, A can use the Delay action to take his turn between B and C -- which he cannot do (according to you) if B and C get the same original initiative result.

Does that make any sense to you? Because it doesn't to me. Why should B's original initiative result have any effect on whether A can act immediately before C or not?

Because...one, it's the rule.

Logically, though, it makes sense because if B rolls a 12, he's technically acting a millisecond before C. If B rolls and 11, he's going at the same time as C.

I will say that I'm not a huge fan of all the d20 3.x rules. Some are quite finnicky to me (like this one), and some are gamist, like the Flank rule. Don't get me started on the Flat-Footed rule.

But, the OP asked for what the rules said--not some arguably better interpretation of the rule.

I've been saying what the rule says, for better or worse. I'm not defending it. I'm just saying what it says.

It doesn't look like either of us is going to convince the other, and I'm starting to think we're both wasting our efforts posting here.

 

[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.

Hurray for additional, clarifying wording in rules!

What is the Rules Archive that you've cited?

Look here.

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.

Admittedly, the Rules Archive is not errata.

However, when RAW is ambiguous, given the choice of "RAI" vs. "RAIM" (rules as intentionally misinterpreted), I choose RAI.

I think the Rules Archive is 100% clear on RAI. In one sentence, it says your init number changes. In the very next sentence, it says "If you delay until another creature's turn" - i.e. their init number - "you can choose to act either before or after that creature acts" meaning if their init was 18, you can be 18 and go before them or be 18 and go after them. I don't think it could be clearer.

 

[Water Bob]

I think the Rules Archive is 100% clear on RAI. In one sentence, it says your init number changes. In the very next sentence, it says "If you delay until another creature's turn" - i.e. their init number - "you can choose to act either before or after that creature acts" meaning if their init was 18, you can be 18 and go before them or be 18 and go after them. I don't think it could be clearer.

We will have to chalk this up to differences of interpretation, because what I see when it says "you can choose to act either before or after that creature acts" is that it is saying, in a different way what it's already said (for clarity, I guess! ) that you can pick 19 or 17 to go before or after the other creature. I think that because the rules consistently refer to init number, and only the init tie rule speaks to init ties.

But, I'll give you this...you've made the clearest argument for the other side.

Personally, I think your interpretation is better. I'm just saying what I think the rules (just as plainly) say*.





*Support for this comes in the definition of Delay, where it says, "The player can specify this new initiative result or wait until some time later in the round to act, thus fixing his new initiative count at that point."

The rules are always speaking to initiative count. The only rule that speaks to the same count is the tie breaker rule. In other words, initiative is always reported in whole numbers.

 

[Vegepygmy]

Logically, though, it makes sense because if B rolls a 12, he's technically acting a millisecond before C. If B rolls and 11, he's going at the same time as C.

That is not true on any level. Not only does the Tied Initiative Rule make it untrue (no two players ever take their turn at the same time), the order of resolution of actions is a gamist fiction that doesn't carry over into the game-world's reality.

In other words, if B rolls a 12 and decides to move 60 feet on his turn, he isn't standing next to C one moment and 60 feet away the next. He's (probably) moving 10 feet per second for the entire 6-second round. C's actions (all of them, whatever they turn out to be) will be resolved after B's movement (all of it) is resolved, but it makes no sense to imagine that C is actually frozen in stasis while B moves 60 feet. It only seems that way from our perspective, because breaking the 6-second round into even smaller increments would make playing the game even slower.

So no, it doesn't make any sense at all to dictate that Player A can choose to resolve his character's actions after Player B if Player B rolls a 12 but not an 11. "When" Player Character B "gets to act" is purely a metagame concern; B is acting the entire round, just like everybody else in the game world.

I will say that I'm not a huge fan of all the d20 3.x rules.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and I'm not suggesting the rules are perfect, but I don't think it's entirely fair to judge rules you don't understand, and it's abundantly clear to me (from this and many, many other threads) that you don't really "grok" the d20 3.x rules.

But, the OP asked for what the rules said--not some arguably better interpretation of the rule.

All rules are subject to interpretation. You seem to believe there is One True Way to read a rule. I wish it were so, but it just isn't. That's why lawyers are able to make an entire profession out of interpreting rules: no matter how clear and obvious you think your interpretation is, it's not the only one. The best you can hope for is that yours is the best interpretation.

I've been saying what the rule says, for better or worse. I'm not defending it. I'm just saying what it says.

Early on, I quoted the text that blows a huge hole in your One True Interpretation: "...or just wait until some time later in the round and act then." You acknowledged how that text could be read to justify a different interpretation, and then totally ignored its existence, choosing instead to stick with your preferred understanding.

So please don't pretend you're "just saying what it says." You're not. (Nor is there any reason for you to do so. We're all perfectly capable of reading "what it says" for ourselves -- unless you're Reader-Man, with powers of literacy far beyond those of mortal men. Are you?)

It doesn't look like either of us is going to convince the other, and I'm starting to think we're both wasting our efforts posting here.

I'd be wasting my time if I were actually trying to convince you, but I'm not. That's a lost cause. I'm really posting here for posterity, so that your misstatements don't go uncorrected, and other gamers (who can be persuaded) may gain valuable insight.

 

[Vegepygmy]

Personally, I think your interpretation is better.

I take the last part of my previous post back. There is hope for you yet.

 

[frankthedm]

Personally, I think your interpretation is better. I'm just saying what I think the rules (just as plainly) say*.

Agree with both notions.

 

[kitcik]

Last try, then I leave the thread to you...

Delay: [1]Delay is a nonaction you use to put off your turn until a point in the initiative order that's more favorable to you. [2]You act normally (that is you can choose from the menu of actions noted in Part One) when you finally decide to act. [3]When you finally take your delayed action, your initiative number changes, as noted on page 160 of the Player's Handbook. [4a]If you delay until another creature's turn, you can choose to act either before or after that creature acts, [4b]but if you choose to act before the creature, you must do so before you know what that creature will do.

Again, given this is not RAW but RAI I am arguing.

In my example, I said you delayed to 18, changing your init number to 18 [sentence 3]. Another char had an 18, and you could choose to act before or after them on 18 [sentence 4a].

Your reply was that you interpreted [4a] to mean you could choose 17 or 19 as your new init to act on.

Here are two reasons that interpretation does not make sense:
1) It specifically says you delay "until" another creature's turn but can still act BEFORE them. If you delayed until 17 (acting before them, I agree), you would not have delayed UNTIL their turn. Therefore, you cannot delay UNTIL their turn (18) and still choose to act on 17. But it says you can delay UNTIL their turn and still act before them. This is ONLY possible if you both act on 18, but you act first.
2) Note also [4b], which says if you act before them you must do so without knowing what they did. This clarification would have been preposterously unnecessary had the intention been that you had to choose an EARLIER init count. Clearly, this is meant to clarify that if you act on the same init count, but before them, you don't get any clues as to what they are doing before you must act.

Any, that's just IMHO, fine with agreeing to disagree.