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

[keterys]

This tactic of delaying until the end of another's turn is particularly effective with 'immobilize until end of my next turn' debuffs. For melee only types it's often worth just delaying in those situations.

It's a rare instance where 'until end of my next turn' is worse than 'save ends', as opposed to being better in most circumstances, despite the system assuming save ends is better than ENT.

 

[DracoSuave]

This tactic of delaying until the end of another's turn is particularly effective with 'immobilize until end of my next turn' debuffs. For melee only types it's often worth just delaying in those situations.

It's a rare instance where 'until end of my next turn' is worse than 'save ends', as opposed to being better in most circumstances, despite the system assuming save ends is better than ENT.

You are aware that delaying your turn doesn't allow you to shrug off negative 'Until the end of my next turn' effects, unless you mean 'Until the end of the monster's next turn' in which case you've turned the ability until:

'Hit for damage, and player loses a turn for this round.'

Cause, delaying -after- the monster who attacks you is costing you one turn per successful attack against you. I'd rather do something trivial than nothing at all.

 

[DracoSuave]

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

Yes. You have a 50% chance of losing your next turn as well.

Gratz on playing this waiting game. It's made of fail and lose; as an adversary, it is -exactly- what I want you to do, because 'be weakened' is certainly less bad than 'do nothing' for a turn.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Yes. You have a 50% chance of losing your next turn as well.

Gratz on playing this waiting game. It's made of fail and lose; as an adversary, it is -exactly- what I want you to do, because 'be weakened' is certainly less bad than 'do nothing' for a turn.

Except it's only a whole turn if you were originally acting just after the monster. Otherwise it's significantly less.

 

[KarinsDad]

It is interesting how often a situation that occurs in my game ends up on ENWorld that same week.

This happened in our game on Saturday. A PC was immobilized and the player wanted to delay until the PC could move again. I wanted to rule against the player due to the core rules, but his rationale that "I'm just waiting until I can move again" made total sense to me and did not disregard the rules.

I have since wondered what is the reason for "effect happens until the end of the attacker's turn" game mechanics and it occurred to me that the reason that the mechanic is in the game system at all is so that the attacker can ensure that he gets another turn (shy of external events) before the target can shake off the effect. With that in mind, delaying until after the attacker's turn ends makes total sesne. The attacker got a second turn in and the effect ends and then the target can go.

Note: This also applies to effects that occur until the start of the attacker's next turn, the attacker just does not get to attack while the effect is still in play.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Except it's only a whole turn if you were originally acting just after the monster. Otherwise it's significantly less.

Of course it's a whole turn. The monster takes 2 turns, you take 1. How's that not a whole turn? Don't confuse round with turn. If you go in initiative 10 and the monster goes in initiative 20, just because you delay till initiative 19 (next round) doesn't mean it's less than a turn.

 

[Obryn]

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?

If you were acting right before the monster that nerfed you, delaying until it's over only lets that monster go again. There's a very fair chance they won't hit you again, and in play it could be even bigger. (Say, the party's fighter got in their face after they got you.)

If you were acting right after the monster that nerfed you, every monster gets another turn before you go again.

What's important is the amount of enemy turns that happen while you're waiting for your nerf to wear off. It varies from point to point, depending on where you are in the initiative order.

-O

 

[keterys]

It's often extremely worthwhile to delay _part of a turn_, allowing a subset of the enemy to act again.

Much like delaying until someone who can grant saves.

Yes, there is a cost. I'd sure hope there was.

Personally, I'd prefer to see a lot less durations that were 'until the end of the attacker's next turn', for a variety of reasons.

 

[Obryn]

It's often extremely worthwhile to delay _part of a turn_, allowing a subset of the enemy to act again.

Much like delaying until someone who can grant saves.

Also, the specific condition matters a whole lot, IMO.

Dazed or blinded? Yeah, CA sucks, so you probably want those over with ASAP. You're pretty much always better off taking your turn.

Slowed or Immobilized for a melee character who's out of range? Weakened for just about anyone? So long as you're only giving one monster group another turn, you're almost always better off delaying.

All of this makes it a bit too initiative-fiddly for my tastes.

-O

 

[keterys]

Can't delay while dazed. If your choice is between acting while blinded or delaying to let one creature go who likely can't blind you again... delaying is extremely valid.

And I agree, too initiative fiddly - why I'd prefer to see durations not work like that.

My ideal would be that harmful effects end by default at the end of the target's next turn (however many targets there are), and a successful save can remove an effect. Some abilities _require_ a save to end them, thereby extending their duration, and some abilities last longer (encounter, until an extended rest, etc). Beneficial effects would last until the end of the target's next turn (or longer if specified) _or_ be an aura-ish type effect.

So, less 'You have a +5 to damage rolls until the start of _my_ next turn' and more 'You have a +5 to damage rolls' and folks track it on their own or 'Anyone within 5 of me gets a +5 to damage rolls'.