Delaying, and effects that end on your enemy's turn

[bonus]

Is there something I'm missing? Page 288 of the PHB states that if you delay, you end negative effects which last until the end of your next turn after you've acted.

 

[Obryn]

Well, if Monster A attacks, then the attacked delays until after Monster A. Then, if Monster A blinds again, the attacked delays until after Monster A's turn again. Each delay is the loss of a turn.

After the first time, right. But that first time; there's still a fair (call it 50% like everything else) chance that the monster won't hit a second time. It changes the nature of the wager substantially, IMO.

-O

 

[Nifft]

Is there something I'm missing? Page 288 of the PHB states that if you delay, you end negative effects which last until the end of your next turn after you've acted.

They're talking about effects that last until the end of the monster's turn.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Sagiro]

Is there something I'm missing? Page 288 of the PHB states that if you delay, you end negative effects which last until the end of your next turn after you've acted.

Yes. You're missing that p.288 refers to negative effects that last until the end of your turn. I'm asking about effects that end at the end of the attacker's turn, which are not mentioned on that page.

 

[bonus]

Ah, I see. Well, that's interesting then. I'd probably rule at as per the rules, I mean if you're blind in combat you probably wait until you can see and keep your wits sharp until then so you can act at once.

 

[Mengu]

I don't have a problem with delaying to get out of a condition that lasts until the end of the enemy's turn. Its perfectly within the rules. You are basically giving the enemy two turns of attacks on you, one of which while you're blinded. And while trying to wait out of being blinded, you might get hit by a power that dazes you, and another that knocks you prone. Now what? Worse, you could just be taken down and end up wishing you had moved, or used second wind. It's sometimes a good idea to delay, and sometimes not. Either way, it seems perfectly legal to me.

 

[FurryFighter]

They're talking about effects that last until the end of the monster's turn.

Cheers, -- N

It might be helpful if anyone's played tactical RPGs via consoles or computers before. It runs very similar.

Initiatives:
Monster A = 19
PC A = 16

If the PC is blinded until the end of the monsters turn, the PC could simply delay until the monsters turn come and goes, thus allowing the effect to end.

Final fantasy tactics has the same battle function. There is a wait command which allows you to wait for half the time, effectively putting your initiative half a round behind, but waiting is still an action, and as such burns off one more tick of negative status, whatever that may be.

However, if you choose to wait like this, you're choosing to do nothing until the effect wears off, whereas if you chose to do something, you would have a chance to do something useful.

Me personally, I would choose to move away from the monsters (like in FFT) while under a negative status effect like blind, until it wears off.

Whether its your turn end or the monster's should make no difference. You can choose to wait until the monster's turn ends. The rules do not say that you have to act while under negative status effect, until the monster ends their turn and the negative effect ends. It just doesnt make sense that a negative status effect:

A. causes your PC to be obliged to react in an unintelligent manner.
B. wont end when it says it ends, if the PC chooses to wait and drop their initiative to the point that they "lap" the monster so it can go and end its turn, which removes the neg aff.

part of the beauty in TRPGs on game systems is that the comp keeps track of all these numbers of initiative and ticks and endings of status affects, so it actually shows the player when it will occur, and the player can use actual tactics like waiting to the best use of that ability. Otherwise its a rules lawyering problem, with only pen and paper to track. The other option is for a player to actually keep 100% accurate track of status effects and durations, so that they can show the DM they're wrong when ruling against them.

A game is only fun when the DM is fair, like it says to be fair in the DM manual. If thats the "house rule" the DM wants to use, I'd be looking around for another group in the meantime.

 

[Sagiro]

A game is only fun when the DM is fair, like it says to be fair in the DM manual. If thats the "house rule" the DM wants to use, I'd be looking around for another group in the meantime.

Let's not get carried away here! The DM made a snap judgment since we didn't want to bog things down mid-battle with a rules discussion. At the time, we all found it reasonable. It was only after the fact, when I read the rules through and pondered a bit, that I realized we had probably made the wrong decision.

I'd guess that the DM will agree with me after reading this thread, but even if he doesn't, that's okay. The game is still fantastic. I wouldn't be "looking around for another group" if you paid me a thousand dollars.

 

[Piratecat]

Dude, pay Sagiro a thousand bucks, and I'll boot him from my game if he doesn't share it with me!

I agree that I should have let you delay. I also think that the monster's shift probably wasn't affected by slow (although if I'd do it again I'd rule the same way on that); maybe the two mistakes balance out!

So in the future, remind me of this conversation the next time it comes up.

 

[Infiniti2000]

After the first time, right. But that first time; there's still a fair (call it 50% like everything else) chance that the monster won't hit a second time. It changes the nature of the wager substantially, IMO.

I have to admit I have no idea what you're arguing. And I can't be the only one. You seem to be agreeing that it's a loss of a turn, but then you're making some other point I simply can't understand. Can you please explain it?