Delaying Initiative.

[bfreakb999]

My players are questioning the rules for delaying your initiative, but not to avoid damage or harmful effects, but because some of their class types are better off going first fairly often.
Example:
Last game one of the players had no negative effects or condition on them whatsoever. However they inquired if they could hold their initiative and come back in the very top permanently. Now I am a big fan of the mechanics of this game, and I know why the rules for this are written the way they are to prevent the players from exploiting and escaping harmful effect in an unfair way, but I have a hard time explaining why he can’t do this if he has no negative effects and would essentially just be losing rounds/turns to do so and come back in on the top. The way some of them see it, is that they are loosing turns to be able to do this, so it is justified. I don’t agree so much.

In my head an lower initiative roll is right in line with a lower attack roll. A lower attack roll means you don’t hit because you weren’t focusing/you were distracted/just had a bad swing. So to me the same holds true for initiative (odd way of seeing it I suppose). You reacted slowly this combat/were taken by surprise/just were not prepared. In return, your allies come to readiness sooner than you and you must act after them.

Just wanted your 2 cents, and do my above explanation seem like a legitimate reason why they can’t do this? It punishes the player for a bad roll. Which I’m always ok with.

 

[Morrus]

I may be wrong, but I'm 99.9999% sur ehe can do that just fine. He can't delay a negative effect, as you pointed out, but he can delay his action until whenever he wants. In this case, until the end of the round (which is the same as the beginning of the next round).

 

[bfreakb999]

Well in PHB pg. 288 the rules state under delayed..

Losing a Delayed Turn: If you don’t take your
delayed turn before your initiative comes up, you
lose the delayed turn and your initiative remains
where it was.

i guess what i'm asking.. is if i should really wave the magic DM wand and allow this.

Is there a way this would break the game?

 

[Morrus]

Well in PHB pg. 288 the rules state under delayed..

Losing a Delayed Turn: If you don’t take your
delayed turn before your initiative comes up, you
lose the delayed turn and your initiative remains
where it was.

i guess what i'm asking.. is if i should really wave the magic DM wand and allow this.

Is there a way this would break the game?

Eh? I'm not sure I get you. If he delays his turn an entire round until his initiative comes up again, then he's not really delaying, is he? He's just missing a turn. Anyone can do nothing in their turn if they want.

If he wants to delay till the top of the initiative chart in the following round, and he's not already at the top of the initiative chart, then the top of the initiative chart comes before his initiative would normally come up - by definition. So he's taking his delayed turn before his initiative comes up.

I guess I'm totally misunderstanding your question, because I can't see where the problem lies!

Also don't understand why being at the "top of the initiative chart" matters in any round but the first - once the round gets going, it's cyclical. The top of the next round is the bottom of the previous round. You're not re-rolling initiative each round or anything silly like that are you?

 

[tmatk]

My players are questioning the rules for delaying your initiative, but not to avoid damage or harmful effects, but because some of their class types are better off going first fairly often.

I'm curious as to what advantage your players (think they) are getting from changing places in init. After the first round, everyone just takes turns. It sounds like they are simply trying to waste their first!

 

[Infiniti2000]

I don't see the value in doing this either. Outside the first round of combat, there's zero gain in the initiative value. Also, in 4e I think it's explicit now that you can't delay to an artificial event, you have to react to something. I don't have the book with me, but I remember this because it matches my houserule in 3.x.

 

[Nytmare]

To me, it sounds like one of two things is happening.

Either you're playing rogue abilities like First Strike incorrectly, and treating everyone in each round of combat as surprised till their initi number comes up.

Or, your players are setting you up, waiting for you to agree to let people make one turn last indefinitely, and then tacking on a "Well if that's ok, then I guess you won't mind if we add in an effect that lasts till the end of our next turn."

I'm a cynical jerk, I know, but not knowing the people involved, that second possibility is the one I'd expect.

 

[Skallgrim]

Let them do it. It conveys no mechanical advantage whatsoever. They are choosing to go later in the initiative sequence. Think of it like this:


--------First Round
Player A
Monster A
Player B
Monster B
--------Player C---does not go.
Monster C
------------Second Round
Player C
Player A
Monster A
Player B
Monster B
Monster C
-------Third Round
Player C...

and so on.

The player who has chosen to delay to go first in the second round has given up his options to do anything in the first round. He isn't gaining any mechanical benefit, because those only accrue to certain characters in the first round of combat.

He is going before all of the monsters get their second round action, but he was going to get to do that ANYWAY (due to his first round action, which he delayed).

Assuming you play complete rounds, he's losing an action in one round to change places in order for subsequent rounds. It's totally fine.

 

[Narcetus]

I agree with most of you that there is no intrinsic benefit after round one for going at the top of the initiative count. Situationally it could be beneficial. Example: My feylock wants to use a power with a condition imposing combat advantage on the enemy that ends at the end of the targets next turn. The monster goes right after me and unless it draws attacks of opp. then the power would be wasted. So i delay till before the rogues turn and set up for a sneak attack. <-- from a RL game last month

I do the same to lay out a save penalty for the fighter to push something off a cliff.

Now I rarely worry about initiative order with "until end of my next turn" conditions, because every player gets a turn in the interim, so it doesnt matter most of the time.

Situational, sure, but valid.

Now as to the OP: Narrating a lower initiative could be phrased that way, but also as dumb luck, who got the jump on who. In any game with grind time after powers are used, it just ceases to matter. It would matter a whole lot more if you were able to one shot something, which rarely happens in 4e.

Thanks for listening.

 

[DracoSuave]

So what you are -really- asking here, is can a player delay until they can coordinate with another player? Yes.

In fact, it does speed up the game considerably if you permit the players to inititive up together and plan and plot and execute, because it allows you to do the same with the monsters.



And delaying never works when you have negative (or positive) effects that are turn-conditional.

If you, say, have ongoing damage 5 (save ends), and you delay your turn, you still suffer the ongoing damage on the first turn, and you suffer it again when you finally take your turn again. On the other hand, you don't get your saving throw at the end of that first turn, so you can't delay to get more saving throws.

If you have an effect that effects you 'until the end of your next turn', if it is a buff, or beneficial, it ends on that first turn that you delayed, and if it's not beneficial, like a bad condition, it ends on the turn you delay -to-.