Stabilization and Delay

[MarkB]

I do agree that players making the stabilisation roll on their turn can have a somewhat unfair effect under certain circumstances.

I don't agree that using the Delay action is the way to deal with it.

If you want to make things fairer, combine your solution with the house rule your player suggsted: When a player drops due to hitpoint loss, reset their initiative to the count on which they dropped, and have them start making stabilisation rolls from the next round. That way you get the best of both worlds - further hitpoint loss always occurs exactly a round after the damage was inflicted, and it occurs on the character's initiative so you don't risk accidentally skipping it.

 

[buzz]

Artoomis, if I understand correctly, all that's happening in your example is shifting the stabilization down 1 init count. Since the PC was hit after his turn, even by the RAW he basically has a whole round before his turn comes up again. Assuming he's not alone, someone has a chance to heal him whether we shift his count or not.

My friend's ruling would be:

Orc/init 11: Hits PC and brings him to -Xhp.
PC/init 10: Does whatever...
...rest of round...
Orc/init 11: PC makes stabilization roll. Orc takes his turn.
PC/init 10: Does whatever (assuming he's not dead)...

...and so on.

I disagreed with this as not being RAW, but figured that allowing the PC to Delay that round accomplishes pretty much the same thing.

Basically, the argument is whether you stick to stabilization on the PC's turn no matter what, or you move it to some more favorable init count, be that by Delay or the attacker's count, whatever.

 

[buzz]

When a player drops due to hitpoint loss, reset their initiative to the count on which they dropped, and have them start making stabilisation rolls from the next round.

Again, how is that any different from using Delay? The longest you can Delay is the count before your next turn, which is basically similar to what you're saying.

Is the issue here that Delay is a decision the player makes, whereas a fixed houserule is a DM's decision? I.e., the fear that a player could use Delay in some unfair way?

See, I'm reading "If you come to your next action and have not yet performed an action, you don’t get to take a delayed action" as basically preventing the "infinite Delay" thing. It just pushes the stabilize check back. With both my idea and my friend's houserule you're basically making the check on the count before your normal count, at the latest.

I'm now thinking I should have sticked with my gut (and RAW). No mercy!

 

[Artoomis]

Artoomis, if I understand correctly, all that's happening in your example is shifting the stabilization down 1 init count. Since the PC was hit after his turn, even by the RAW he basically has a whole round before his turn comes up again. ....

Sorry - got my numbers backwards. I'll go back and fix it.

Bottom line is I think it's fairest to change the intiative count for the PC to just after the enemies intiative with no hp loss until just after the enemy's next turn.

But this cuts both ways. If the PC does get healed, they cannot act until just after the enemy's next turn.

Note that I suggest no choice from the player - this would be automatic and thus will prevent "Delay" weirdness and abuses while unconcious.

The only real non-RAW thing you would do is to change when the player's turn happens - the rest is pure RAW.

 

[MarkB]

Again, how is that any different from using Delay? The longest you can Delay is the count before your next turn, which is basically similar to what you're saying.

Is the issue here that Delay is a decision the player makes, whereas a fixed houserule is a DM's decision? I.e., the fear that a player could use Delay in some unfair way?

See, I'm reading "If you come to your next action and have not yet performed an action, you don’t get to take a delayed action" as basically preventing the "infinite Delay" thing. It just pushes the stabilize check back. With both my idea and my friend's houserule you're basically making the check on the count before your normal count, at the latest.

I'm now thinking I should have sticked with my gut (and RAW). No mercy!

I never was arguing the matter in terms of fairness, just in terms of rules. By the rules, there are two good reasons why you can't use Delay to do what you wanted to use it for - first, that it doesn't actually prevent your initiative coming up, and second, that it requires a conscious decision in-character.

In terms of fairness, I think the current rules are a little on the unfair side, but that they're done that way to ensure stabilisation rolls don't get 'lost' because they're out of turn. Thus, I suggested a house rule which achieves what you wanted without messing with how the Delay action works.

 

[buzz]

Artoomis, MarkB: Gotcha.

I think the disconnect here is that I wasn't seeing Delay as something the character does, but rather a meta-decision the player makes that essentially interrupts the init flow. Ergo, unconsciousness isn't a factor in my view. Also, since the PC's init count gets reset by the Delay, you also keep the stablization from getting lost; the PC and the roll stay "together," as it were.

Anyway... I agree that the simplest thing is to stick to 100% RAW and just keep the PC's count the same and have them make the check then.

I'm gonna ask (and likely get smacked down) by WotC CS, regardless, just to see what they say.

EDIT: Thanks for indulging, everyone.

 

[pawsplay]

Delay is the player simply choosing a different initiative count on which to have their PC act. The PC's turn doesn't actually happen until that new count.

That's not what it actually says.

By choosing to delay, you take no action and then act normally on whatever initiative count you decide to act.

So unless YOU, the player, were about to draw your sword, but decided to wait, it is definitely refering to the character.

Incidentally, the fast rogue is not penalized. Just like everyone else, only the people after him and before him will act before he acts again. The slowest dude in the party has the same issue.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Isn't that kind of like Delaying in order to increase the duration of a spell?

 

[pawsplay]

Isn't that kind of like Delaying in order to increase the duration of a spell?

Does that work? I would think the spell triggers as the initiative comes up, and then the PC can choose to delay. I do not think that works.

 

[buzz]

If you haven't already, you may now point at me and laugh.

Sorry but no. Delaying is a choice that must be made that an unconscious character cannot make.

Ah, well.