Ready Refocus?

[Psionicist]

Is it technically possible to ready a refocus (whenever you open a door or such)?

Thanks.

 

[the Jester]

Is it technically possible to ready a refocus (whenever you open a door or such)?

Thanks.

Nope, refocusing is a full-round action, and readying lets you ready a standard action.

Note that 3.5 no longer has the refocus action, since you can just delay for the same effect.

 

[cptg1481]

Question for you Jester

We had this arguement in my game recently and perhaps you can help me settle things.

I had a PC who wanted to delay...delay.....delay.....etc. (3.0 rules BTW)

I said that he eventually had to go in the round somewhere and that he could only delay until the last initiative count minus his initiative modifier and that when he did so his initiative would then remain at that number for the rest of the combat. I also said that he needed to declare which count he intended to delay to that he couldn't just wait until he wanted to act. I thought that that would take the place of readied and those types of combat actions. He claimed that he could just delay indefinately even if the round ended then go first if he wanted in the next round. I said he needed to refocuss to do that. As GM I went with my decision but still wonder what the right answer is.

Also some light on how this would work within the 3.5 rules without refocuss? In 3.5 can one delay until the next round and then go on that initiative for the rest of the fight. This is very abusable if that is so. I mean the cyclic nature of the game sort of insists that you go on some count in a round. Allowing one to delay from say count 5 to last then dleay further to the begining of the next round seems somehow wrong. Of course this has always screwed me up but hey, thus the question.

Thanks, I love the boards.

 

[youspoonybard]

I've never understood why people fret about this.

After the first round of combat, going first is the same as going last.

 

[HeavyG]

I've never understood why people fret about this.

After the first round of combat, going first is the same as going last.

Yup.

With cyclical initiative, when a round ends and another begins is pretty meaningless. In our group, we use initiative cards and at the end of a large battle, we have no idea when the end of "the round" is.

 

[the Jester]

We had this arguement in my game recently and perhaps you can help me settle things.

I had a PC who wanted to delay...delay.....delay.....etc. (3.0 rules BTW)

I said that he eventually had to go in the round somewhere and that he could only delay until the last initiative count minus his initiative modifier and that when he did so his initiative would then remain at that number for the rest of the combat.

Well, in 3.0 you can delay to (I could be wrong, can't remember exactly) -10 minus your initiative bonus or something like that. You are correct about his initiative changing. Keep in mind that delaying lets you take a full-round action, so you can refocus at the end of the round. This might not make you first- say your initiative bonus is +1 and someone else has a 23 initiative- but you'll be pretty close.

I also said that he needed to declare which count he intended to delay to that he couldn't just wait until he wanted to act. I thought that that would take the place of readied and those types of combat actions.

Nope, the big differences between readying an action and delaying are that readying is a standard action that lets you take a standard action that interrupt someone else's action, and that delaying is a full-round action that lets you take a full-round action later. Each has its advantages and disadvantages; basically, if you want to be able to beat someone to the punch you'll only get a standard action. When you delay, you can delay until you choose to act (subject to the silly rules in 3.0 about only going down to whatever the limit is).

Also some light on how this would work within the 3.5 rules without refocuss? In 3.5 can one delay until the next round and then go on that initiative for the rest of the fight. This is very abusable if that is so. I mean the cyclic nature of the game sort of insists that you go on some count in a round. Allowing one to delay from say count 5 to last then dleay further to the begining of the next round seems somehow wrong. Of course this has always screwed me up but hey, thus the question.

Well, the thing is, you lose a round when you delay until next round. Sure you're going at the top of the round, but if you go last in the first round instead of first in the second round you're still going ahead of everyone.

The only things rounds are good for in 3e (3.x, fill in your own x) is tracking durations. Otherwise, just think of everything in turns (as in, it's Drelvin's turn).

Hope this helps!