Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kerbarian" data-source="post: 4717404" data-attributes="member: 40393">I think this is most easily explained with an example:Initiative 17:  A hobgoblin drops Thog the fighter to -3 hp.Initiative 11:  Thog's turn.  He's unconscious and can take no actions.Initiative 10:  Aril the cleric heals Thog, and he's conscious again.In this case, Thog loses an entire turn and will still be prone when the bad guys go again.  However, if Thog's initiative had been 9 instead of 11, he would have been healed before his turn and not lost any actions (aside from probably spending a move action to stand back up).Is this correct by RAW?Since this is a significant loss of actions due to initiative order between players, it seems like the smart thing for players to do would be to reorder their initiatives (by delaying past each other) so healers act between the enemies and other characters, giving them a chance to revive fallen allies before they miss their turns.As a house rule in my campaign, dying characters automatically delay (though the rules say you can't delay if you're unable to take actions).  It seems like following the RAW would reward otherwise-unnecessary initiative fiddling and occasionally frustrate players who don't make the effort to keep track of those little details.Can anyone think of a good reason why it makes more sense (or leads to better gameplay) if dying characters can't delay (as per RAW)?</blockquote>