Can a character use an action on their own turn to help someone else to get up from being prone (so they have their turn free)? I'm not concerned with AoE semantics, but can it be done?
|
Stand from prone is a move action that will provoke.
Citing the Aid Another mechanic, I don't see anything about helping them to their feet. So while they could do it thematically, I don't think it would help to avoid an AOO, or gain any real benefit by RAW.
However as a GM, I would allow (via DM Fiat, and non-RAW) that the helping PC could take the AOO for the downed PC if they wished. Kinda like shielding them from taking the AOO by interposing themselves. I wouldn't let them abuse that, but for a cool "i saved my buddies butt" moment I'd say that's cool enough to fly once in awhile.
Stand from prone is a move action that will provoke.
Citing the Aid Another mechanic, I don't see anything about helping them to their feet. So while they could do it thematically, I don't think it would help to avoid an AOO, or gain any real benefit by RAW.
However as a GM, I would allow (via DM Fiat, and non-RAW) that the helping PC could take the AOO for the downed PC if they wished. Kinda like shielding them from taking the AOO by interposing themselves. I wouldn't let them abuse that, but for a cool "i saved my buddies butt" moment I'd say that's cool enough to fly once in awhile.
I'd also go this route.
|
Well there is a weak argument that could be made for "A reposition attempts to force a foe to move to a different position in relation to your location without doing any harm."
My game group uses this to help allies up. They take an AOO if applicable and its a standard action so it balances pretty well.
I'd disagree on taking the AoO for the fallen but I'd be willing to let you help. The game is all about action economy, so I'd probably say helping someone else up is a standard action. You free up the fallen person's move action. I would have that fallen person then stand up on their turn without consuming that move action, but it still provokes.
A - assistant
F - fallen
E - enemy
Map:
AFE
In that case, E can't make an AoO on A because they don't threaten A. Regardless, F is the one who's moving around in E's area of impending death.
I think it's fair to give one benefit: F gets their actions back. They can full attack, move, make a 5ft, whatever. Taking the AoO away too is too much benefit.
People,
The OP is not worried about AoO. They are wanting to get the ally on their feet so that the ally has a full round action on their initiative.
To the OP, there's nothing in the rules that forbid or allow it. It would be reasonable to use STR chart for this though. You're not actually asking to help them stand up on their own, that's them moving themselves with help, which is a move action.
What you want to do is pick them up and put them on their feet. So what I've done for that in my games is allow the PC who wants to help the ally up to do so, if they have sufficient STR to pick up the ally and all their gear. If they do, then they can pick the PC up off the ground as a standard action and set them on their feet. I do this for my wife all the time (she has nerve issues, and can't stand up on her own if she's on the floor). Pretty much I just grab her under the arms and hoist. Takes about 2 seconds.
As far as provoking AoO, I instead give them both the 'grappled' condition for the turn, to represent that they are easier to hit while doing this (and it's more thematically appropriate).
|
|
People,
The OP is not worried about AoO. They are wanting to get the ally on their feet so that the ally has a full round action on their initiative.
Then the answer is a flat no. There is no such way by RAW to do so.
"To the OP, there's nothing in the rules that forbid or allow it."
And therefore you cannot assume to provide your own feedback on how to handle it via RAW then. It doesn't exist. So by you attaching grappled etc in your pov, that's just like we just offered with our own homegrown solutions.
:)
Actually, RAW, you can pick up and put down Objects. A prone character is a type of object. :)
Please provide a reference where objects are defined.
EDIT : Also, I said characters, not players. Players are not defined within the game system. :)
For most characters, another character would be well over their light load, so there could be some difficulties in picking them up. But what if the character helping another one up is MUCH bigger and stronger than the prone person, to the point that they are still under their light load limit while lifting that character? Would anyone adjudicate that case differently? The example I have in mind is a size Large eidolon with strength of 24 picking up a prone gnome or halfling.
Why is it limited to light load? All they need to be is 'lift off ground' weight, which is usually much better. Remember, you're not trying to pick them up and charge with them, you're picking them up, not moving, and then putting them back down in a different position.
I'd probably require an immediate acrobatic check from the person being picked up and put down to stay on their feet, since they aren't under their own control when they get set back down.
|
|
Please provide a reference where objects are defined.
EDIT : Also, I said characters, not players. Players are not defined within the game system. :)
Fair enough, however, With RAW, if it doesn't say this player/character is an object they are not objects, in this circular argument I win by default unless you can prove otherwise.
That said, object is defined by the very word used, and part of what an object is, and they do not (usually) cover living things. There are exceptions but they are covered where appropriate.
The light load is not directly in the rules, but I was mentioning it as an approximation of the effort involved. I guess the load would only be relevant if the character picking up the other one decides to carry him some distance before putting him down.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Winterwalker, if we go by the definition of the word, then you are just completely and utterly flat out wrong.
Per dictionary.com
ob·ject
noun
1. anything that is visible or tangible and is relatively stable in form.
2. a thing, person, or matter to which thought or action is directed: an object of medical investigation.
3. the end toward which effort or action is directed; goal; purpose: Profit is the object of business.
4. a person or thing with reference to the impression made on the mind or the feeling or emotion elicited in an observer: an object of curiosity and pity.
5. anything that may be apprehended intellectually: objects of thought.
So, no, a character is an object, and you do not win. Either way you look at it you don't win. Either object is defined within the game system explicitly (which it is not), or object uses the meaning of the english word 'Object' which, as you see above, absolutely does cover living things.
Basically, an object is anything that has a physical, tangible form.
|
|
Winterwalker, if we go by the definition of the word, then you are just completely and utterly flat out wrong.
Per dictionary.com
ob·ject
noun
1. anything that is visible or tangible and is relatively stable in form.
2. a thing, person, or matter to which thought or action is directed: an object of medical investigation.
3. the end toward which effort or action is directed; goal; purpose: Profit is the object of business.
4. a person or thing with reference to the impression made on the mind or the feeling or emotion elicited in an observer: an object of curiosity and pity.
5. anything that may be apprehended intellectually: objects of thought.So, no, a character is an object, and you do not win. Either way you look at it you don't win. Either object is defined within the game system explicitly (which it is not), or object uses the meaning of the english word 'Object' which, as you see above, absolutely does cover living things.
Basically, an object is anything that has a physical, tangible form.
Let me ask you, do you feel that in this game 'object' refers to a person?
Because a person can certainly be the 'object' of an investigation, but they don't spontaneously become an 'object' to the extent they are now treated like one in terms of game effects. If so provide a RAW example and I will bow to your victory.
p.s. the example pasted above, doesn't prove you right either.
That is the English definition -- but I think the game term is more restrictive. The word "object" is certainly used in the Pathfinder rules as though it did not include "creatures".
No I don't, I'm using your words. You said a person was not an object. A person is an object, it's a subset of objects. Just as a dolphin is a whale, but not all whales are dolphins.
You wish to parse out that people are not objects, and therefore cannot be picked up and put down by someone with enough strength to do so. You then required me to point to a rule that said people were objects.
You then said that we had to use the real world meaning of the word since it wasn't defined in game, and said that people were not objects. I pointed out that no, the meaning of the word is that people are objects, since an object is anything with a physical presence.
You object (verb, not noun) to having to produce a rule that defines what objects are, and that people are not allowed to be picked up. I see no RAW that says you cannot pick up a willing person. Nor do I see any RAW that says you cannot put them back down. I see rules saying you can pick up an object and put it down. Basically, your stance Winterwalker is, that you are correct, but you cannot point to a single line of game rules that backs up your stance, nor can you point to any real world definitions that back up your stance.
@David Knott 242
You object to the real world definition of Object, and I am fine with using the game definition of Object. I will ask you the same thing I asked WinterWalker. Please identify the section of the rules that define 'Object' for purposes of the game, indicating that it is different from the standard meaning of the word. This exists for things like 'level', since level in English is not the meaning of level in Pathfinder. It also exists for things like 'skill', 'strength', 'constitution', and other terms that are not depending on their real world definitions.
|
|
No I don't, I'm using your words. You said a person was not an object. A person is an object, it's a subset of objects. Just as a dolphin is a whale, but not all whales are dolphins.
You wish to parse out that people are not objects, and therefore cannot be picked up and put down by someone with enough strength to do so. You then required me to point to a rule that said people were objects.
You then said that we had to use the real world meaning of the word since it wasn't defined in game, and said that people were not objects. I pointed out that no, the meaning of the word is that people are objects, since an object is anything with a physical presence.
You object (verb, not noun) to having to produce a rule that defines what objects are, and that people are not allowed to be picked up. I see no RAW that says you cannot pick up a willing person. Nor do I see any RAW that says you cannot put them back down. I see rules saying you can pick up an object and put it down. Basically, your stance Winterwalker is, that you are correct, but you cannot point to a single line of game rules that backs up your stance, nor can you point to any real world definitions that back up your stance.
@David Knott 242
You object to the real world definition of Object, and I am fine with using the game definition of Object. I will ask you the same thing I asked WinterWalker. Please identify the section of the rules that define 'Object' for purposes of the game, indicating that it is different from the standard meaning of the word. This exists for things like 'level', since level in English is not the meaning of level in Pathfinder. It also exists for things like 'skill', 'strength', 'constitution', and other terms that are not depending on their real world definitions.
By your own logic, there's no rule saying you CAN, so unless you have an example or RAW on your side, which you don't, you failed to prove it can be done. Actions that can be done in combat are defined and that, picking up an ally, is not defined. You need to cite why this can be done, or it can't be by RAW. That's how this rules forums operates. What you are presenting is nothing more than your opinion.
Real world definitions wouldn't apply, even if I did ask you for it. There is more than an implied sense of what an object in pathfinder is, and people are not objects. Also, I fail to see your real world paste there applying as that didn't prove you were right. Or did you ignore that the last time I said the same?
Either way mdt, this cannot be done by RAW by anything you presented.
not what your looking for by far but heres a rules example of a person being considered an object from Ultimate Combat a barabarian rage power
Body Bludgeon (Ex): While raging, if the barbarian pins an opponent that is smaller than her, she can then use that opponent as a two-handed improvised weapon that deals 1d8 points of bludgeoning damage, assuming the opponent is sized Small. Larger or smaller creatures used as a bludgeon deal damage based on their size using this base damage. A size Tiny creature deals 1d6 points of damage, a size Medium creature deals 1d10 points of damage, and so on. The barbarian can make a single attack using the pinned opponent as part of the action she uses to maintain the grapple, using her highest attack bonus. Whenever the barbarian hits using the pinned opponent as a weapon, she deals damage to her target normally, and the grappled opponent used as a bludgeon also takes the same damage she dealt to the target. If the pinned opponent is unable to resist being pinned for any reason, the barbarian can use that opponent as an improvised weapon without grappling or pinning the opponent, until the creature is reduced to 0 or fewer hit points, at which point the creature becomes useless as an improvised weapon. A barbarian must be at least 10th level before selecting this rage power.
my point with this is that in certain situations a person can in fact be considered an object unless you want to argue that weapons arent objects hope this helps your point mtd
|
|
not what your looking for by far but heres a rules example of a person being considered an object from Ultimate Combat a barabarian rage power
Body Bludgeon (Ex): While raging, if the barbarian pins an opponent that is smaller than her, she can then use that opponent as a two-handed improvised weapon that deals 1d8 points of bludgeoning damage, assuming the opponent is sized Small. Larger or smaller creatures used as a bludgeon deal damage based on their size using this base damage. A size Tiny creature deals 1d6 points of damage, a size Medium creature deals 1d10 points of damage, and so on. The barbarian can make a single attack using the pinned opponent as part of the action she uses to maintain the grapple, using her highest attack bonus. Whenever the barbarian hits using the pinned opponent as a weapon, she deals damage to her target normally, and the grappled opponent used as a bludgeon also takes the same damage she dealt to the target. If the pinned opponent is unable to resist being pinned for any reason, the barbarian can use that opponent as an improvised weapon without grappling or pinning the opponent, until the creature is reduced to 0 or fewer hit points, at which point the creature becomes useless as an improvised weapon. A barbarian must be at least 10th level before selecting this rage power.
my point with this is that in certain situations a person can in fact be considered an object unless you want to argue that weapons arent objects hope this helps your point mtd
This does not apply to 'picking up an ally from prone' in the middle of combat. Using someone as a weapon, doesn't mean he suddenly becomes a weapon and therefore an object? Eh. I don't believe it says that.
RAW people, not RAI.
By your own logic, there's no rule saying you CAN, so unless you have an example or RAW on your side, which you don't, you failed to prove it can be done. Actions that can be done in combat are defined and that, picking up an ally, is not defined. You need to cite why this can be done, or it can't be by RAW. That's how this rules forums operates. What you are presenting is nothing more than your opinion.Real world definitions wouldn't apply, even if I did ask you for it. There is more than an implied sense of what an object in pathfinder is, and people are not objects. Also, I fail to see your real world paste there applying as that didn't prove you were right. Or did you ignore that the last time I said the same?
Either way mdt, this cannot be done by RAW by anything you presented.
1) I have RAW that says you can pick up an object, and put one down (you admit this). Specifically, under Move Actions, it says you may 'Move a heavy object' or 'Picking up an object'. These provoke attacks of opportunity.
2) RAW does not define objects in anyway, so we must fall back on the english definition of them (you said this yourself, until you were proven wrong that people are not objects).I do not have to show RAW spells out that you can pick up a person and put them back down explicitly. I have to prove that RAW says you can pick up an object, and that a person is an object. I have done both. You will have to point out a bit of raw that contradict this. Unless you can show RAW that says people are not objects, your conjecture is simply something you made up out of whole cloth. Please point to actual RAW WW, or bow out of rules discussions if you refuse. I have cited why it can be done. You have not cited rules to back up your assertion that it can't be done. Please, I am more than willing to listen to any rule you have, but you have not stated a single rule, only your personal opinion. Then you have slandered me and told me I am only giving opinion. You are the one giving opinion without being able to cite one single rule to back it up, whereas I have cited rules to back up my reading of the rules.
my point with this is that in certain situations a person can in fact be considered an object unless you want to argue that weapons arent objects hope this helps your point mtd
It won't. Basically, WinterWolf is one of those people who, once they have decided how things should be, will not be satisfied unless there is a line of text in the rule book that states 'People are objects'. The fact that Object is not a game term, and is just an english word that's used in the rules is completely irrelevant to him, if it doesn't agree with his feeling of what should happen, he will not accept anything.
i understant that but you said
Let me ask you, do you feel that in this game 'object' refers to a person?
Because a person can certainly be the 'object' of an investigation, but they don't spontaneously become an 'object' to the extent they are now treated like one in terms of game effects. If so provide a RAW example and I will bow to your victory.
so i gave you an instance wich give a by the rules situation where a person can be an object i also said at the beginning of my statement it wasnt what you were looking for merely showing that a person can be an object in certain situations your also overlooking the fact that it is a game and every possible situation could never be properly be defined in the system and if it could it would take more time than our lifespans you can what if all you want and attack everythign people have to say day but you have to be helpful at all the only thing youve succeeded at this whole time is being a "bully"(not sure how strict the language filters are so rather than be banned ill be childish) the original question was can it be done legally or reasonably you havent given an example of either at least other people have given ideas of house rules GM's might use in their tabletop games so please stop trolling and try to be helpful
essentially any system allowing a limb to be severed would constitute a form of sundering in relation to a person
|
|
It won't. Basically, WinterWolf is one of those people who, once they have decided how things should be, will not be satisfied unless there is a line of text in the rule book that states 'People are objects'. The fact that Object is not a game term, and is just an english word that's used in the rules is completely irrelevant to him, if it doesn't agree with his feeling of what should happen, he will not accept anything.
my point with this is that in certain situations a person can in fact be considered an object unless you want to argue that weapons arent objects hope this helps your point mtd
There's no need to make inaccurate assumptions about how I think. Please don't go down that road.
Can you sunder a person?
If they are being held by another person, yes, you can.
SunderYou can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack. If you do not have the Improved Sunder feat, or a similar ability, attempting to sunder an item provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver.
If your attack is successful, you deal damage to the item normally. Damage that exceeds the object's Hardness is subtracted from its hit points. If an object has equal to or less than half its total hit points remaining, it gains the broken condition (see Conditions). If the damage you deal would reduce the object to less than 0 hit points, you can choose to destroy it. If you do not choose to destroy it, the object is left with only 1 hit point and the broken condition.
You would deal damage to the person normally. The second half, which says how object in general are treated (destroyed vs wounded) is superseded by the section under damaging living creatures (which is a subset of objects), which means specific overrides general in this case. So rather than 'destroying' the object if it's alive, you simply send it to negative HP, per normal rules (that pesky dealing damage normally'). Note that dealing damage to an object normally involves either destroying it at 0 hp, or leaving it at 1 hp. :)
There's no need to make inaccurate assumptions about how I think. Please don't go down that road.
That is the English definition -- but I think the game term is more restrictive. The word "object" is certainly used in the Pathfinder rules as though it did not include "creatures".
It is, he just wants to prolong this silly thing for whatever reason.
Pot, please meet kettle.
|
I'd also go this route.Stand from prone is a move action that will provoke.
Citing the Aid Another mechanic, I don't see anything about helping them to their feet. So while they could do it thematically, I don't think it would help to avoid an AOO, or gain any real benefit by RAW.
However as a GM, I would allow (via DM Fiat, and non-RAW) that the helping PC could take the AOO for the downed PC if they wished. Kinda like shielding them from taking the AOO by interposing themselves. I wouldn't let them abuse that, but for a cool "i saved my buddies butt" moment I'd say that's cool enough to fly once in awhile.
Just want to point out this seems awfully hypocritical of you BltzKrg242 to have agreed 7 hours ago, but suddenly do a 180 now.
Also it's rather embarrassing to see you guys try to prove a 'person' is an 'object'. You should all feel a little dirty inside. I'm shaking my head in disbelief.
Honestly WW, you should just let it go with being right here. Even if this odd thing of trying to prove a person is an object, which I 100% do not agree with, you still can't pick a person up in combat as the OP asked.
Sorry guys, you are the ones coming off misinformed here, not W.W.
@Crimson
Please point to the rule that says you can't? I see no rule that says you cannot pick up a person in combat. Nor do I see a rule that says a person is not an object. I do however see rules that say you can pick up an object in combat with a move action, and that it provokes an attack of opportunity. I have no issue with someone saying that it can't be done, if they have some rule somewhere to back them up. At the moment, nobody has pointed to a rule in the book that contradicts the rules quoted that seem to apply to the situation.
From a game balance standpoint, person A is giving up their action to allow person B to take their full action instead. This is not unbalanced.
In the game, a creature is defined as having wisdom and charisma scores, as these scores represent awareness of surroundings and having a sense of self. Objects are defined as not having these. Yes, plants (not plants creatures) are considered objects, and yes that's kind of weird.
OP, there are no rules for the situation, your DM would have to adjudicate it.
EDIT: Proof
"Wisdom (Wis)
Wisdom describes a character's willpower, common sense, awareness, and intuition. Wisdom is the most important ability for clerics and druids, and it is also important for paladins and rangers. If you want your character to have acute senses, put a high score in Wisdom. Every creature has a Wisdom score. A character with a Wisdom score of 0 is incapable of rational thought and is unconscious."
"Charisma (Cha)
Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance. It is the most important ability for paladins, sorcerers, and bards. It is also important for clerics, since it affects their ability to channel energy. For undead creatures, Charisma is a measure of their unnatural “lifeforce.” Every creature has a Charisma score. A character with a Charisma score of 0 is not able to exert himself in any way and is unconscious."
I agree the rules say that creatures have Wisdom and Charisma.
You state that objects do not.
Intelligent objects, like a sentient sword, have both Charisma and Wisdom, but are objects.
The rules quoted do not say that objects do not have those, it simply states that creatures (a subset of objects) have them.
|
|
@mdt In the RAW forums I don't need to have a source that says I can't, YOU need a rule that says you can. Apologies if that isn't what you want.
Otherwise you open a can of really dumb things.
Spells that target objects only can now target can people, but only when someone picks them up?
Someone trying to make Steve the peasant a +1 flaming peasant because he is being used as a weapon by a Barabarian. Then someone trying to 'steal' Steve when via sleight of hand.
Plus, add in the whole fact objects have actual rules about how they are treated with hardness and HP. A real object gains the 'broken' condition at 50% HP, does a person? No. Does a person become 'ruined' at 0 HP (like an object does?) No.
Then a person 'really' isn't an object by how 'objects' are treated are they?
Nope!
The problem Crimsen, is that you are trying to conflate 'object' to mean, I can mix human for object in every case. I am not. I am stating that in the case of picking up someone in combat, the person can be an object. An object is undefined in the rules, and a person is an object as far as the common meaning of the word. I have pointed to rules that say you can pick up or move a heavy object in combat (a person I think would be a heavy object).
I'll turn your own argument against you, though.
You can't make Steve a +1 flaming peasant because he's not a masterwork anything.
You can't steal Steve using slight of hand for the same reason you can't steal a 200 lb wooden statue using slight of hand.
People use different rules for HP than inanimate objects (not the qualifier on the object there), but that's a case of specific overriding the general.
Again, I'm not arguing that people can always be counted as an object in every specific instance. I am stating that in a general statement, people can be objects, and in the specific of picking up a person in combat, they can count as an object.
If you don't believe a person can be picked up in combat, then you are also stating that someone who is unconscious cannot be picked up by an ally and carried off. You're also saying a bride can't be carried over a threshold because they are not an object. Both of those are, of course, ridiculous. So yes, you can pick up a prone ally in combat (assuming they aren't resisting, if they are, then the grapple rules come into play, again, specific overriding general).
Just want to point out this seems awfully hypocritical of you BltzKrg242 to have agreed 7 hours ago, but suddenly do a 180 now.
There is no hypocrisy involved.
I'm not agreeing with anything other than that mdt was asked to do something and did.I don't think we have to go down the route of "a person is an object" to make this work.
I think that, the solution as proposed, and, as I agreed to, would allow the game to proceed.
Though it would be pretty awesome if we got to use mending to spam heal...
No, no, I see what's going on here. I'm grateful for the different rulings and insights, but as a player, I seem to see now it's up to the dm, and as a player, I would rule it as a standard action in accordance with a STR chart reference as per advice found here.
As far as this person/object debate goes, I'm not picking a side, because these are just game semantics-
Though I must say there was a campaign where the paladin lost her powers because she got annoyed that we were in a dungeon without equipment and started using my character as a battering ram against a locked door. That was hilarious. Painful IC, but as players, we were laughing very hard.
@OP - There's a cleric spell (Blessing of Fervor) that grants each recipient a boon of their choice each round, one of which is standing as a swift action. Aside from that I don't think that there is any way to mitigate the action loss although you can take the sting out of the AoO you provoke say by using total defense to stand.
Just want to point out this seems awfully hypocritical of you BltzKrg242 to have agreed 7 hours ago, but suddenly do a 180 now.
There is no hypocrisy involved.
I'm not agreeing with anything other than that mdt was asked to do something and did.
I don't think we have to go down the route of "a person is an object" to make this work.
I think that, the solution as proposed, and, as I agreed to, would allow the game to proceed.
I don't think we need to go to the point of calling a person an object. I do believe the rules as they are supports picking someone up, but there are people who insist that it every situation must be covered explicitly by the rules, or it's not allowed. So, when that happens, I look for rules that support common sense and work within them.
-although you can take the sting out of the AoO you provoke say by using total defense to stand.
You can do that?
Also, your username is awesome.
I agree the rules say that creatures have Wisdom and Charisma.
You state that objects do not.
Intelligent objects, like a sentient sword, have both Charisma and Wisdom, but are objects.
The rules quoted do not say that objects do not have those, it simply states that creatures (a subset of objects) have them.
My group has always considered intelligent weapons/items to be constructs, like animated objects are (which also have cha/wis scores). They're clearly creatures and most or all have sentience.
|
|
The problem Crimsen, is that you are trying to conflate 'object' to mean, I can mix human for object in every case. I am not. I am stating that in the case of picking up someone in combat, the person can be an object. An object is undefined in the rules, and a person is an object as far as the common meaning of the word. I have pointed to rules that say you can pick up or move a heavy object in combat (a person I think would be a heavy object).
I'll turn your own argument against you, though.
You can't make Steve a +1 flaming peasant because he's not a masterwork anything.
You can't steal Steve using slight of hand for the same reason you can't steal a 200 lb wooden statue using slight of hand.
People use different rules for HP than inanimate objects (not the qualifier on the object there), but that's a case of specific overriding the general.
Again, I'm not arguing that people can always be counted as an object in every specific instance. I am stating that in a general statement, people can be objects, and in the specific of picking up a person in combat, they can count as an object.
If you don't believe a person can be picked up in combat, then you are also stating that someone who is unconscious cannot be picked up by an ally and carried off. You're also saying a bride can't be carried over a threshold because they are not an object. Both of those are, of course, ridiculous. So yes, you can pick up a prone ally in combat (assuming they aren't resisting, if they are, then the grapple rules come into play, again, specific overriding general).
The root of your argument is still flawed, I have no interest in debating your flawed perceptions further. They are in fact flawed because there is no rule supporting "picking a person up in combat, so that they can get their full round of actions."
It does not exist in the actions you can take during combat sections, nor in the aid another section etc.
It makes no difference if some how your circular logic does prove they are an object for the purpose of...whatever, theres still no pre-defined rule saying you can do that.
In essence your trying to rule that you can give your action to them, making it so you pick them up and they can make a full round of actions after being prone.
What you need to do at this point is prove that, I see nothing proving that. I think you really need to re-evaluate your position on this, it's grossly misleading, and simply wrong. You're providing a big disservice to someone that asked for help (the OP) and no one seemed to have a problem with what WW originally said in the matter, and you have forced him to constantly battle your incorrect assessments on what 'is' and is not' an object to do it. Gross. It's just gross.
Please reconsider, or at a minimum take this to a dev or maybe ask James thread for a final ruling on "are people objects" per what is an object here, though I can honestly say that might just make you look silly.
My group has always considered intelligent weapons/items to be constructs, like animated objects are (which also have cha/wis scores). They're clearly creatures and most or all have sentience.I agree the rules say that creatures have Wisdom and Charisma.
You state that objects do not.
Intelligent objects, like a sentient sword, have both Charisma and Wisdom, but are objects.
The rules quoted do not say that objects do not have those, it simply states that creatures (a subset of objects) have them.
Except that they can be sundered.
Standard action.