Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Arrowhawk" data-source="post: 5628748" data-attributes="member: 6679551">I copied the quote from a PDF format. It came out small and I didn't care that I over sized it. But it resulted in my later text being shrunk so I had to manually resize that as well.  That stands to reason. But the game, at least by the RAW, and not the clarificaiton, was talking about the lower of an init result which is not something your character would do. Like when it says you roll your ability scores. YOU, the person don't have abilities scores...but your character does. My construction of the inartful use of "you" by WotC involves looking at what a character would do versus a player.  So in the original text of Delay, they change context just like they do when they talk about ability scores.  Both are, imo, poor examples of how one should write rules for a game. I should hope we can both agree that WotC does a lousy job of being consistent with whether it meams you the person or you the player. If you look at PHB, there are many many instances when the game says "your charcter" instead of just "you." Clearly there are some instances where they feel it is necessary to specify, some where they think it's obviosu, and a whole lot of instances where they don't seem to think it matters.  Yes, no, and they don't seem to think the context is even an issue.   I think I made above.    1. See my stuff about ability scorse above. WotC has no qualms about referring to you the player and you the character in the same sentence you using the same "you." 2. I actually had a discussion about this with the other DM last night. Surpised to find out, he said I was being too literal with the reading. His approach was to ignore the "literal" reading and constuct what he believed was their intended meaning. In essence, he would not give WotC the benefit of the doubt that WotC could accurately describe what it meant. Given how Ready is written and how a lot of other things don't make sense...as written. I can see his point. But the story ain't over. When I explained to him something you disagreed with below....he changed his opinion. He said the stronger argument is that it is far more likely that the game would not want to give you the option of both delaying your action AND avoiding being FF. He and I both agree that the game has gone to such lengts to impose this FF state on everyone, it would be nonsensical for them to let people so easily slip out of it.  3. Even the new reading of "put off your turn" is ambiguous. Characters don't know whose turn it is. Characters act. Do you think two boxers in a ring know whose turn it is? Maybe that's a bad example, because they wouldn't know what round it was if not for the lady carrying the sign <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />. But seriously, when we talk of turns, AC, Action Types, 5-foot step, these are metagame concepts. Do you even know what your Strength is without referencing it based on how much you can lift? What about your Dex modifier? Or your Charisma? Do you know what your wife's Charisma is? Have you ever seen a group of players have an internal discussion about who has the highest skill rank in a skill before the party attempts to use the skill? Metagaming. Let's get back to the heart of the matter...being FF. Let's be honest, even if Water Bob had not quoted the WotC FAQ, does anyone really think the Immediate Action would have been a legitimate way to avoid being FF? No. I used the example to point out that the RAW is poorly written in many cases. This applies to the FF state where people want to read the "may act" and your character's decision to Delay as being a point at which he "may act." WotC said, we don't care what the RAW says, an IA doesn't stop being FF. What does that tell you James? If the FF rule were written accurately, they wouldn't need to say that would they? So neither acting nor having the option to act is really the determining factor with being FF. You can still take a "nonaction" activity and be flat footed. In fact, you can elect to fail your Ride DC check, a decision to act/non act, and still be flat footed, wouldn't you agree? Given WotC's statement on an IA and the Delay action, I would still give the most weight to whether it is your "turn/initiative" as the deciding factor. I would argue, or I would give more weight to the argument that a Delay is the changing of your turn...you "put off your turn" as such, you remain FF until you take your turn. Would it totally blow me away if WotC said Delaying was intended to be a valid way to avoid the FF flag? No...but it would rank up there with the implementation of the "No Dex Bonus" as things that don't make a lot of game design sense.  But as I stated above, I'm not so wedded to the idea that a Delay is strictly a metagame decision. It's not unreasonable for a person to come to the conclusion, given the rewording and the introduction of this "nonaction" activity, that Delay is not metagaming and that it removes the FF status. Though one doesn't necessarily determine the other.</blockquote>

Verification