Stealing The Nish

[arcseed]

Ok, before delaying, the order of actions is: Bob, Jon, Ogre, Hobby, Goblin, Frank, Bob, Jon, Ogre, Hobby, Frank, Bob, Jon, Ogre, Hobby, Frank.

After delaying the order of actions is: Bob, Jon, Ogre, Hobby, Goblin, Frank, Bob, Jon, Ogre, Hobby, Frank, Bob, Jon, Ogre, Hobby, Frank.

Where is this advantage you speak of?

 

[Water Bob]

Ok, before delaying, the order of actions is: Bob, Jon, Ogre, Hobby, Goblin, Frank, Bob, Jon, Ogre, Hobby, Frank, Bob, Jon, Ogre, Hobby, Frank.

After delaying the order of actions is: Bob, Jon, Ogre, Hobby, Goblin, Frank, Bob, Jon, Ogre, Hobby, Frank, Bob, Jon, Ogre, Hobby, Frank.

Where is this advantage you speak of?

You obviously didn't read my example.

After delaying, the order, in Round 3 is:

Round 3. Frank attacks the Hobby.
Round 3. Bob attacks Ogre.
Round 3. Jon attacks Hobby.
Round 3. Ogre attacks Bob.
Round 3. Hobby attacks Jon

Frank, Bob, Jon, Ogre, Hobby.

All three PCs go before the monsters.

Had Frank not delayed, Round 3 would look like this:

Round 3. Bob attacks Ogre.
Round 3. Jon attacks Hobby.
Round 3. Ogre attacks Bob.
Round 3. Hobby attacks Jon
Round 3. Frank attacks the Hobby.

In which case, only Bob and Jon go before the monsters, and Frank goes last.

If you were Frank, low on hit points, would you want to go first or last?

But...you already answered that. You wanted to go first with your allies going first also. That's what happens once Frank Delays.





EDIT: Or, more simply...

Round 1, Frank goes after the monsters.
Round 2, Frank does not attack and is not attacked, but delays.
Round 3, Frank goes before the monsters.

That gives Frank an attack before and after the monsters in three rounds.

Originally, Frank would have both attacks after the monsters, as the combat would look like this:

Round 1, Frank goes after the monsters.
Round 2, Frank moves and attacks after the monsters.
Round 3, Frank attacks after the monsters.

Here, Frank is getting an extra attack, but he's also moving last in the round.

Let's say Frank is so wounded that one more attack would kill him. A player can't know that in a fight, but let's say that we do. You'd go for option A above, gaining the advantage, attacking before the monsters in order to kill them (so they can't attack Frank) instead of getting Frank killed with option B, right?

The Delay basically allows you to give up a round's worth of actions in order to gain an earlier place in the order of combat. This is not unlike giving up your Move action in order to take two attacks with a Full action.

You can't see that advantage?




2nd EDIT: I should point out that I do see your point as you are counting, over two rounds, how many times Frank gets to go before the first monster goes, and you're seeing the same number.

I do see your point, but I don't think you're seeing mine. Consider my example with more characters and more people Delaying. The round structure completely changes, and your argument falls apart (although it is sound when looking only at one person Delaying).

For example, you say:

After delaying the order of actions is: Bob, Jon, Ogre, Hobby, Goblin, Frank, Bob, Jon, Ogre, Hobby, Frank, Bob, Jon, Ogre, Hobby, Frank.

But, that's only because Frank delayed to the 1st in the round. What if he Delayed until after Jon went? The order of actions definitely changes.

Bob, Jon, Ogre, Hobby, Goblin, Frank, Bob, Jon, Ogre, Hobby, Frank, Bob, Jon, Ogre, Hobby, Frank.

Becomes...

Bob, Jon, Ogre, Hobby, Goblin, Frank, Bob, Jon, Ogre, Hobby, Bob, Jon, Frank, Ogre, Hobby.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Water Bob, it might be best if you read my post. I'm not trying to shove it down your throat. In fact, I think you might have missed it since it was quite lengthy. I'll reiterate part of it, though:

Now, in a combat situation with three or more people, delaying will give quite a big benefit, potentially, though this is always situational. The reason for that is that rather than reacting to the highest initiative (as you've implied is the case), creatures react to whatever happened between their last turn and this turn.

This goes back to combat order. In a combat scenario with only two combatants, since you are solely reacting to one another, combat order never needs to change. It goes as follows: T, B, T, B, T, B, T. If Ben won initiative in the first round, then he would win the fight (all things being equal). That being the case, just swap the order of combat, and you'll see that delaying to hold subsequent combat rounds makes no difference.

If we take three combatants, this all potentially changes. Add Kenny to the mix. In fact, make it a three-way combat, where everyone involved wants everyone else dead. If Kenny (as the newest addition) had the lowest initiative, combat rounds would look like this: T, B, K, T, B, K, T, B, K, etc.

Now, with three people involved, there is potentially a lot of ways the fight can change. If Kenny (last on initiative) see Tom and Ben trading blows, he can simply delay each round until one of them is dead, and then attack the survivor. This makes perfect sense, and this shows the direct benefit to delaying in certain scenarios. If, however, Tom attacked Kenny in the first round, Ben could decide to delay, and see if Kenny trades blows with Ben. If that's the case, then Ben will just watch the fight, delaying multiple turns, and then attack the winner.

This speaks more to the order of combat (T, B, K, T, B, K, T, B, K, etc.) than who has the highest initiative in any round except the first.

I hope that makes sense. After the first round of combat, it is much more important what happened between your last turn and your current turn, regardless of initiative. That is the important part, not the initiative score (which is just an arbitrary means to determine who goes before your last turn and your current turn). Now, you can change your initiative score, which has advantages. Nobody has denied that. But there is no inherent value in having the top initiative score after the first round of combat.

 

[arcseed]

Ok. Now we're getting somewhere. Yes, as mentioned by others earlier, there's potential advantages to be gained by delaying until after your allies go. For example, if Bob has a buffing spell. The advantage, however, is not from a higher initiative score, but from lowering the initiative past that of the allies (or enemies, for the earlier mentioned example of waiting for the enemy to attack once, then full attacking) in specific situations where that is beneficial.

As you can see, from every example produced, what matters is the order of actions, not the raw initiative score.

 

[Sekhmet]

For example, you say:

But, that's only because Frank delayed to the 1st in the round. What if he Delayed until after Jon went? The order of actions definitely changes.

Bob, Jon, Ogre, Hobby, Goblin, Frank, Bob, Jon, Ogre, Hobby, Frank, Bob, Jon, Ogre, Hobby, Frank.

Becomes...

Bob, Jon, Ogre, Hobby, Goblin, Frank, Bob, Jon, Ogre, Hobby, Bob, Jon, Frank, Ogre, Hobby.

I think I have finally identified your problem.
You think every combat round is a new scenario, with new advantages to be had and is in all ways completely new.

If the turn order is Bob, Jon, Ogre, Hobby, Goblin, Frank; you could also read it as Frank, Bob, Jon, Ogre, Hobby, Goblin. Or Hobby, Goblin, Frank, Bob, Jon, Ogre. Or Ogre, Hobby, Goblin, Frank, Bob, Jon. Or Jon, Ogre, Hobby, Goblin, Frank, Bob. Or Goblin, Frank, Bob, Jon, Ogre, Hobby.

These are all exactly the same as each other. The combat log would still read exactly the same.
Nothing actually changes in any of those orders. Nothing. At. All.

Suppose the Hobgoblin wants to act between Bob and Jon.
Order is Bob, Hobby, Jon, Ogre, Goblin, Frank.
This is a minor change, as now Jon can react to the Hobgoblin BEFORE the Ogre and Goblin can, making it (slightly) harder to gang up on Frank.

However, in ALL possible combat orders, every combatant gets ONE turn to every other combatant's ONE turn.

The only way to change that is with special attacks and magic (Trip, Sleep, or other incapacitation), in which case; it does not matter if you move before or after the Wizard doing it, you will still lose your turn to it.

----------------
Please point out very specific points if you are going to counter-argue, as it will make it easier to clarify. All of us are trying our best to explain it to you, using examples that you bring forward, and you are just shooting us down without telling us how we are unclear.

 

[Nagol]

Let's look at the last round and see what happens if Frank DOES NOT delay. The changes are in green.


Round 2. Frank attacks the Hobby.



Round 3. Bob attacks Ogre.
Round 3. Jon attacks Hobby.
Round 3. Ogre attacks Bob.
Round 3. Hobby attacks Jon (or possibly Frank, but most likely Jon).
Round 3. Frank gets to go again.

How is this worse? The order of actions is the same EXCEPT Frank gets another action at the end of the round that he would surrender if he delayed. His delay did not confer any advantage to the situation at all.

 

[Dross]

The rules use the term "cyclical" for combat because after the 1st round, it then goes in an order and a "round" is more a bookkeeping term (for durations and the like) rather than a distinct entity on it's own

WB I need something clarified. You replied to this

Ok, here's the thing: no one is arguing that having an extra action over your opponent doesn't have a large effect on the outcome of the battle. Winning initiative gives you that extra action in the first round.

with this

It can also give it to you in later rounds, too. Note in the example below, Cain gets more actions than Able gets.

For example, Cain and Able fight.

R1: Cain attacks Able twice. Then Able attacks Cain twice.
R2: Ditto.
R3: Ditto.
R4: Ditto.
R5: Cain kills Able on the second attack.

Cain, because he had initiative, attacked Able a total of 10 times.

Able attacked Cain a total of 8 times.

There is no scenario where Able can attack Cain more times than Cain attacks him (unless Cain simply retreats or is disabled by an outside force), yet there is a scenario (this one) where the reverse is true--where Cain attacks Able more times than Able is "able" (hee-hee) to attack.

Why?

Cain has initiative, and Able does not.

Thus: Initiative does give an advantage to the character who holds it.

I think I'm seeing what you are on about WB
You are thinking that Cain's attacks in R5 are extra actions because Able becomes dead before he acts in R5.

With this in mind you conclude that having the initiative in subsequent rounds is important.

It may appear that way but the reason Cain gets "extra" actions in R5 goes back to the fact that Cain had initiative in R1. After round 1 everyone goes in order so that everyone gets a turn before someone gets a 2nd turn

That is why people are saying after the first round initiative is less important: you have acted, they act, you act, they act etc.

 

[Dross]

WB these are quotes from post #5, #9 & #35 respectively.

It just seems like it takes the oomph out of having initiative if I can simply give up one round's worth of actions to have the highest initiatiave next round.

Yes, because it makes rolling for initiative rather moot. Skip an action, and you're the first to act in any round f rfgor the rest of the combat.



EDIT: For example, why take the Improved Initiative Feat when someone can just skip a six second round and easily go before you?

What I am saying is that a character with nish has an advantage in the first round and in every round after that (in disagreement with many people here saying that nish does not matter after the first round).

To me 5 & 9 contradict 35.

My reasoning is:

• posts 5 & 9 says: not having initiative in the first round is not that bad because I can delay to get initiative in the next round and have the advantage.
• post 35 (and others) says: having initiative in the first round is important, because with that I have initiative in subsequent rounds and thus have the advantage.

Is this what you are trying to say?

what I'm saying is this:

• Having initiative in the first round is good because I have the advantage. This advantage carries over to subsequent rounds only because I had the advantage in round 1.
• If I don't have the initiative in round 1 I'm at a disadvantage. If I delay until I have the initiative in the next round, I do not gain anything.

See my examples in post 31, everything came down to who won initiative in the 1st round.


The rules use the term "cyclical" for combat because after the 1st round, it then goes in an order (determined in R1) and a "round" becomes more a bookkeeping term (for durations and the like) rather then distinct segments where people don't react to what happened earlier.

 

[kitcik]

I think Nagol's last post says it succinctly (not that it hadn't been said succinctly like 10 times already). If Water Bob still doesn't get it, then he should just have everyone in his party delay for a few encounters (because if it's good for one character, it must be good for each character) and report back how it goes.