Should Waiting permanently change your place in the turn sequence?

[ericthered]

Originally Posted by sjmdw45

Can you think of a way to break rear/runaround attacks via Wait, if the target gets another turn between your Wait and your next turn?

Being able to run around someone to automatically stop their attack while attacking them feels pretty broken.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by VIVIT

The FAQ strongly recommends against trying to reorder the turn sequence after a battle has started and gives some pretty sound reasons why this should not be done. If the turn order suddenly changes from A–B–C to C–B–A, then for one pair of seconds we end up with A–B–C–C–B–A, giving C two turns in a row and forcing A to wait twice as long as normal before he gets his next turn. If A took an AOA last turn, he's hurting! This also messes with the durations of effects, which run on the "clock" of the character maintaining them.

Except, there's one way that actions can be resolved in a different order than normal: the Wait maneuver. And it has some of the same problematic effects. Suppose A declares to Wait before executing an AOA on C as soon as the latter does something. Because A's next turn comes immediately after C's, A recovers his defense right away, negating the sole drawback of the AOA maneuver.

Assuming C's action was to attack A he's still defenseless to C's attack so he'd better hope C doesn't block his attack.

[Anthony]

There is certainly a logic to a wait being basically 'you remove yourself from the turn order until your wait triggers or you choose to stop waiting, in which case you are put back into the turn order at the time the wait ended', but that might be hard to actually use in a game.

The way this work in a turn-less system is that every time you take an action you go on cooldown for a duration that depends on the cost of the action (and may not be fixed), and you can simply act at any time you aren't on cooldown. However, this is not generally a mechanic I've seen in an RPG (Feng Shui has a somewhat similar system, and I've seen it in board games like Red November).

[ehrbar]

Originally Posted by Anthony

The way this work in a turn-less system is that every time you take an action you go on cooldown for a duration that depends on the cost of the action (and may not be fixed), and you can simply act at any time you aren't on cooldown. However, this is not generally a mechanic I've seen in an RPG

Exalted 2nd edition's tick-based combat worked like this. (Technically, you "acted" whenever the cooldown from your previous action expired, but you could take an abortable wait as your action, so.)

[sjmdw45]

Originally Posted by ericthered

Being able to run around someone to automatically stop their attack while attacking them feels pretty broken.

If you try it twice, they'll just switch to Move and Attack.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by sjmdw45

The problem is that in some cases it lets A stab C in the back with no chance for defense.

A: I'll wait for C to step within 1 yard of me, and then I'll do a Committed Attack, which gives me an extra step (4 yards total because I have Move 11), to step directly behind him, and then stab him between the shoulder blades in a runaround attack.

C: I Step and Attack A.

GM: he steps around you and stabs you. [Die rolls] A's runaround attack hits but you Dodge it.

C: Can I turn around and stab A?

GM: no, you've already used your step. But you can attack D.
.

The problem there is the GM's ruling. C can step and turn. C is not finished their move when A interrupts it so C can turn.

[mburr0003]

Originally Posted by Varyon

I'd say in a situation where someone gets to start their turn in someone's back hex due to such oddities of the turn sequence rather than the typical backstab situations, treat the attack as a Runaround Attack.

I could swear* there was a Kromm quote that the spirit of Attack From Behind required the victim to have deliberately left their foe in their rear, thus the victim having a full turn between someone getting behind them and then them attacking, and that this Kromm ruling was against some things that gave multiple turns... older 2 and 3e Altered Time Rate, Great Haste, etc. Most of which has been cleaned up by 4e rules tweaks.


* But upon looking couldn't find it.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by ehrbar

Exalted 2nd edition's tick-based combat worked like this. (Technically, you "acted" whenever the cooldown from your previous action expired, but you could take an abortable wait as your action, so.)

Not a system really noted for its smooth and easy combats, though.

For fixed turn length where wait changes your initiative, I think it would be hard to make smooth in play without some sort of mechanical FIFO to keep track of initiative. For example:

Initiative is a deck of (face up) cards. When your card is on the top of the deck, it's your turn. When your turn comes up you may:

1. Take your turn. Put your card at the bottom of the deck.
2. Delay. Pick up your card. You may play your card (putting it at the bottom of the deck) to take an action.

If you want variable action cost, you probably need some sort of initiative racetrack like you see on some board games.

[sjmdw45]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

The problem there is the GM's ruling. C can step and turn. C is not finished their move when A interrupts it so C can turn.

You can turn as part of a step but not after you've stepped.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by sjmdw45

You can turn as part of a step but not after you've stepped.

They haven't finished stepping. Interrupting the character's movement with your wait doesn't freeze them in place.