bbangerter wrote:
You are inferring a rule that doesn't actually exist, and therefore may or may not actually be the intent.
You mean like inferring that characters sleep lying down? Does it say in the rule book that characters lie down to sleep? No. But we infer that is how it is done because the game involves humans and that is how humans typically sleep. As soon as the game introduces humans as a playable race, that creats a paradigm under which the game must operate.
A round in Pathfinder is roughly six seconds. We are told this by the rules. That assertion has a host of consequences about what can and cannot be done in a round and most importantly it establishes the paradigm of time within the game. This is affirmed when the rules talk about the relative duration of Free and Swift actions. An unavoidable corollary of time is that given X time, I can accomplish anything that takes X-A time to complete, where A is any number greater than 0 and the task is not limited by effort.
So yes, we automatically infer that if I have a Move Action's worth of time and a task only requires a Free Actions worth of time to complete, then I can accomplish that free action in that same amount of time. In fact, the amount of time required for a Free Action is so small, the rules tell us we can take one or more during any other action "normally." In fact, it doesn't even state that the "other action" has to be a move or standard. There is nothing in the game that contradicts this notion until the FAQ.
The PDT tells us we only get that Move Action but not the associated Free/Swift actions. The PDT FAQ does not say we cannot perform the Free in lieu of the Move Action. If that is what they meant, then they need to explain how a non-magical stomach distress changes the laws of physics with regards to time? If it only takes a Free action's worth of time to drop my weapon, then how can I not drop my weapon as a Free Action if I have more time than is required to do so? Telling me that I can drop my weapon asa Move Action is not an explanation. That is transforming the action into something it is not. The rules clearly imply that the time and effort of Free actions is less than any move action. So the paradigm of time tells us that we can still perform those actions as Free Actions because we have more time than we need to perform those actions.
So what is the logic behind the PDT's FAQ? Is it simply that the believe the Staggered condition mandates this or is there a belief on their part that the Nauseated Condition should really make every action take a Move Action's worth of time to complete and thus incur AoO's?
Quote: "One or more equivalent actions" does not give any indication what might be considered equivalent actions. Is it based on time to perform actions? Effort to perform actions? Something else? And we have no specific information on how long it takes to perform any specific Free Action. Yet, GMs are still allowed to determine, per RAW, how many are feasible within a given round. This would be no different.
Examples do not hold.
Example 1, "Release a Grapple"; you need, in order to maintain a grapple, a Standard Action and a CMB check, which is an attack, so you can not mantain a grapple while nauseated, no matter if you can or can not perform free actions.
Example 2, "Guide you mount with your knees"; although maybe can be performed with a Free Action, I really doubt can be performed without concentration; guiding a mount without looking at where you are guiding it, thus needing concentration, will lead it to follow a random path. So, I do not think with the prior nauseated rules we could guide any mount, with knees or hands.
Example 3, "Remove your hand from a weapon"; this example looks similar to drop a weapon, and makes not much sense as Darksol pointed out. Why would you want to remove your hand from a weapon you are holding? The only case that comes to my mind is that, in your backpack or sheath, you have a mighty weapon that makes you immune to the nauseated condition and is a two-handed weapon.
The nonsensical thing that has been pointed out about concentrating on a spell was and is still solved due the same reason about guiding a mount, while nauseated you can not concentrate, so you lose your spell at the start of your turn, no need for any game crash.
And about the point of this rule being a silly rule because you can not perform silly actions, such as, during a combat, in front of your enemy, you can not go prone quickly, is kinda silly. So, we define a rule as silly because it does not allow us to perform silly things, kinda funny.
Example 1: You can release a grapple as a free action. This is something different than the maintain a grapple check you're referring to. It's silly that you can't release a grapple when nauseated.
Example 2: All this stuff about concentration is beyond anything written in the rules. If you can casually walk around obstacles, it should be the same or less effort to guide a mount, especially considering it's normally a free action.
Example 3: I dunno, maybe because you want to open a door so you can leave, for example? (and ironically, opening the door is the easy part) There are certainly many other entirely mundane and reasonable things you might want to have a hand free for.
You're missing the point about the spell concentration. Per the FAQ, you cannot stop concentrating on a spell (a free action) because you are too nauseated. LOL. How can you even argue that makes sense?
Yes, this game is a combat simulation and not everything will make perfect sense. But the idea is to at least try and make it a reasonable approximation for what we would expect in a fantasy world. While this can't always be accomplished, I feel this FAQ has created more absurdities than it fixed.
The whole point of the nauseated condition is to provide a mechanical hindrance. It does not translate well into realism. Sometimes the rules don't make sense if you apply them to real life situations, but they make sense from how they alter the mechanics of the game and make the target in questions have to work around the hindrance placed on them. If you like your realism, then that FAQ is not for you and you could apply your own interpretation to your home games.
Numarak wrote: Example 3, "Remove your hand from a weapon"; this example looks similar to drop a weapon, and makes not much sense as Darksol pointed out. Why would you want to remove your hand from a weapon you are holding? The only case that comes to my mind is that, in your backpack or sheath, you have a mighty weapon that makes you immune to the nauseated condition and is a two-handed weapon. First I want to say that I'm fine with following the ruling. I think it's clear and easy to interpret.
I do want to point out that this last item is more likely to come up than some of the others. As I mentioned far upthread, one of my characters has Accelerated Drinker. He also fights with a Longspear. So in the past, his reaction to becoming nauseated might have been:
Round 1) Take one hand off Longspear (Free Action). Take out a Potion of Remove Sickness (Move Action).
Round 2) Drink the Potion of Remove Sickness (Move Action thanks to Accelerated Drinker).
Round 3) Help someone else or kill the enemy.
Now it becomes:
Round 1) Manipulate an Object (the Longspear) into one hand (Move Action).
Round 2) Take out a Potion of Remove Sickness (Move Action).
Round 3) Drink Potion of Remove Sickness (Move Action)
Round 4) Help someone else or kill the enemy.
So, by the time he's able to remove the condition himself, the condition may have worn off anyway.
Other things that could be similarly affected include taking out an item to hand to someone who isn't nauseated (wand, scroll, potion, macguffin, etc.), opening doors as has been mentioned, or anything else that requires a free hand.
Again, I have no problem following the rule. Just pointing out that there are perfectly valid situations when this action (removing a hand from a weapon) might be necessary while nauseated, and under the rule those things now take longer to do.
Example 1: so, just to put it forward, you have a problem with not being able to stop doing something that you won't be able to do in the first place? Maintaining a grapple. I do no see a problem there.
Example 2: So guiding another being is as difficult as moving oneself? I do not think so, but, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. And this example does not serve our purpose, because is labeled as No Action. You would be able to do so independently if you are allowed to do Free Actions or don't.
Example 3: Where in the rules is stated you need to drop/sheathe your weapon to open a door? There are not that many other entirely mundane and reasonable things you might want to have a hand free for and rules call for a free hand to do so. Climbing comes to my mind, and only if you are humanoid.
I argue about the spell because it is quite clear that what you can not do is concentrating on the spell; not being able to not concentrate on the spell is insubstantial to our problem, which is, being able to mantain the concentration. For me, this instance of false problem is equal to the example 1. If your character is dead you can't neither stop concentrating and that does not seem a problem to you. I suggest you apply the same logic here -and with the grapple thing-.
Anyhow, I'm ok with your opinion about the FAQ. I'm just stating my own.
Ferious, in your example you only lose one round of effectivity. Then you state "So, by the time he's able to remove the condition himself, the condition may have worn off anyway."; it is my guess that all nauseated conditions long 3 rounds?
And that is with the Feat Accelerated Drinker, without we won't be having this discussion at all. So, now, Accelerated Drinker has become a better Feat, it allows you to remove yourself the nauseated condition with a potion.
About the rest of things you mentioned, most of those magic items, if not all, generally are used using a Standard Action, so makes not much sense to hold them out to show them to your enemies. Not even counting that attacking -including wands, scrolls and macguffins- is a barred action.
And again, that is only my opinion. Everyone is free to state their own.
Exmple 3 was not "Drop a Weapon." It was "Remove your hand from a weapon." If you are wielding a two-handed weapon when you become nauseated, then you have to take a free action to remove your hand from your weapon in order to have a free hand to do things like take something out of your pack or open a door. EDIT: That free action now becomes the Manipulate an Object Move Action.
EDIt, EDIT: You might want to hold an item out to someone on your team who is not nauseated. Say, for example, you've got the arrow of nauseating beast slaying, but you are nauseated. You can't fire it, but you could take it out of your quiver and hold it out for someone who could. You can't do that without a free hand. Or a scroll of dimension door, or whatever. These things are situational, yes, but everything is situational.
To say the rule is fine because you'll never want to do those things anyway isn't really a great argument, because that's going to vary from player to player.
The rule is fine, because it's the rule. Players can still do any of those things using other, move equivalent actions. It just takes them longer than it did before.
Sorry, I should have consolidated into a single post. Kept crossing with yours...
Stinking Cloud is likely the most common source of the nauseated condition (or similar effects). Once you are out of the cloud, you remain nauseated for 1d4+1 rounds, or 3.5 rounds on average. Meaning in round 4, whether you drank the potion or not, you'd likely still be able to act normally.
Accelerated Drinker is not a feat, it's a trait. It's also not better now that the ruling has been made. It always improved drinking a potion to a Move Action (provided that you have the potion in hand to start your turn), so you could always drink a potion while nauseated and remove the condition. What has changed is, in a particular situation (already holding a two-handed weapon), that it takes a round longer in order to pull it off.
I addressed why you might want to hold an item out in my edit above. I'm not saying hold it out to your enemy (though there might be something you could show the enemy to get them to stop attacking). I'm saying to hold an item out to your ally who isn't nauseated, so they can take it and use it.
1. "Release a grapple"
You could also just not maintain the grapple.
2. "Guide your mount with your knees"
You can still do that.
"Guide with Knees: You can guide your mount with your knees so you can use both hands in combat. Make your Ride check at the start of your turn. If you fail, you can use only one hand this round because you need to use the other to control your mount. This does not take an action."
3. "Remove your hand from a weapon"
Manipulate an Item.
4. "Cease Concentration on a Spell"
Concentration on a spell requires; "Concentrating to maintain a spell is a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity."
So you don't need to use a free action to stop. Since you can't use a Standard to Concentrate on it anyway.
That plus;
"Nauseated: Creatures with the nauseated condition experience stomach distress. Nauseated creatures are unable to attack, cast spells, concentrate on spells, or do anything else requiring attention. The only action such a character can take is a single move actions per turn."
The condition prevents it anyway.
Byakko wrote: Btw, the Crawl action does not place you prone. You must already be prone in order to crawl. Yeah, it doesn't spell this out for you, but does it really need to? Come on. Citation required.
This is untrue. Nothing in the description for Crawling requires you to already be prone. You are adding an imaginary rule.
"Crawling: You can crawl 5 feet as a move action. Crawling incurs attacks of opportunity from any attackers who threaten you at any point of your crawl. A crawling character is considered prone and must take a move action to stand up, provoking an attack of opportunity."
Please use examples that are actually a problem. Because so far every example of what can't be done while Nauseated with Free Actions is either already covered and stopped by the condition before the FAQ or can still be done.
Shar Tahl wrote: The whole point of the nauseated condition is to provide a mechanical hindrance. It does not translate well into realism. Sometimes the rules don't make sense if you apply them to real life situations, but they make sense from how they alter the mechanics of the game and make the target in questions have to work around the hindrance placed on them. If you like your realism, then that FAQ is not for you and you could apply your own interpretation to your home games. There's a difference between realism and verisimilitude. FAQs and rules that break the latter should be avoided if at all possible.
After a little reading last night, I realized there are EXCEPTIONS to the nauseated condition preventing anything other than move actions.
Paladins mercy used on self MIGHT be interpreted to allow this.
There is a Mythical ability (I don't have my book handy) that ONLY works on 'self only' that lists, as a swift action, removal of multiple conditions INCLUDING NAUSEATED.
Those are two I can think of off the top of my head... there may be others.
So perhaps specific conditions exist that override the 'move only' clause, but in general, I still believe swift/free/standard actions are restricted (as intended by the writers).
alexd1976 wrote: So perhaps specific conditions exist that override the 'move only' clause, but in general, I still believe swift/free/standard actions are restricted (as intended by the writers).
The FAQ says you only get a move action, so we know you don't get a move action + swift, free, which is odd, but palatable. However, RAW says I can use my move action to take an action that takes a "similar amount" of time. Nothing in the game or real life suggests that if something takes less time than a move action, one cannot perform the action using the time allotted for a move action. Remember, RAW talks about the relative time of the actions. So this concept of time as the ultimate constraint is introduced by the game itself.
I'll put it to you like this, if before the FAQ, someone said that a player wanted to do six or seven free actions in a round and the GM asked if it were legal to make the player use a move action to do this, what percentage of people polled would have said it was within the rules to allow more free actions at the cost of a move action?
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Here's the one you're thinking of, but it has terminology allowing it, regardless:
Quote: Unstoppable (Ex): At 8th tier, you can expend one use of mythic power as a free action to immediately end any one of the following conditions currently affecting you: bleed, blind, confused, cowering, dazed, dazzled, deafened, entangled, exhausted, fascinated, fatigued, frightened, nauseated, panicked, paralyzed, shaken, sickened, staggered, or stunned. All other conditions and effects remain, even those resulting from the same spell or effect that caused the selected condition. You can use this ability at the start of your turn even if a condition would prevent you from acting.
_Ozy_ wrote: There's a difference between realism and verisimilitude. FAQs and rules that break the latter should be avoided if at all possible. From my perspective it's not just verisimilitude, it's internal consistency. This rule is like saying that a long sword does 1d8 if you attack from the right side but only 1d6 if you attack from the left side....but all the other weapons do the same damage from either side, and being given no explanation why this is only true for the long sword.
Chemlak wrote: Here's the one you're thinking of, but it has terminology allowing it, regardless:
Quote: Unstoppable (Ex): At 8th tier, you can expend one use of mythic power as a free action to immediately end any one of the following conditions currently affecting you: bleed, blind, confused, cowering, dazed, dazzled, deafened, entangled, exhausted, fascinated, fatigued, frightened, nauseated, panicked, paralyzed, shaken, sickened, staggered, or stunned. All other conditions and effects remain, even those resulting from the same spell or effect that caused the selected condition. You can use this ability at the start of your turn even if a condition would prevent you from acting.
Thanks!
So the answer to the OP is yes... under certain conditions.
You CAN use THIS ability as a free action to end the nauseated condition. :D
I wonder if other exceptions exist?
Has the Paladin's mercy been ruled on somewhere (using it on themselves, I mean)?
_Ozy_ wrote: The whole point of the nauseated condition is to provide a mechanical hindrance. It does not translate well into realism. Sometimes the rules don't make sense if you apply them to real life situations, but they make sense from how they alter the mechanics of the game and make the target in questions have to work around the hindrance placed on them. If you like your realism, then that FAQ is not for you and you could apply your own interpretation to your home games. One other major problem with the FAQ, that I hope the designers are realizing, is that judging by responses in this thread, we're going to get even more table variation regarding this condition. Certainly the point of a FAQ should be to reduce variation, not increase it.
I think the key to understanding the thought process for the FAQ is in the FAQ itself,
Nauseated FAQ wrote: ...Compare to the staggered condition, which says “A staggered creature may take a single move action or standard action each round (but not both, nor can he take full-round actions). A staggered creature can still take free, swift, and immediate actions.” It would seem the PDT believes that because the Staggered condition calls out the inclusion of free, swift, and immediate actions, that must mean any condition that does not include these actions does not allow them. Rule by exception as it were. Lending credence to this interpretation is the Disabled condition which, like Staggered, specifically allows free, swift, and immediate.
So what about all the other situations in the game where a character is limited to a "single move action" and free, swift, and staggered aren't specifically allowed?
PRD wrote: Battle Fury (Su): At 20th level, the dervish dancer can unleash a whirlwind of blows while performing a battle dance. As a full-round action, he can take a single move action and unleash a single attack at his highest bonus against each target within his reach during any point of his move, up to a maximum number of attacks equal to the dervish dancer's character level. This movement provokes attacks of opportunity as normal, and replaces deadly performance. PRD wrote: Manacle Barbs: Barbs added to these manacles wound a captive who does more than move slowly and with care. A creature secured in barbed manacles takes 1 point of piercing damage if it takes more than a single move action during a round. Rough movement of any kind, such as being struck in combat or falling prone, likewise causes 1 point of damage. Attempting to break out of barbed manacles with a Strength check deals 1d4 points of piercing damage to the captive regardless of the success of the attempt. PRD - Mythic Irresistible Dance wrote: ...With either form, you can direct the creature like a marionette as a move action, causing it to take a single move action at half its speed along the path you specify. PRD - Sleepwalk spell wrote: You compel an unconscious or sleeping creature to rise and move in a half-awake state. The target creature staggers about if led or guided, but remains helpless for all other purposes. The subject moves at half speed and is limited to a single move action each round. It is not capable of moving at a higher rate of speed or taking actions other than movement except by magical assistance, and automatically fails any Dexterity- or Strength-based skill checks. If the creature takes any damage while sleepwalking it must make a new saving throw or the spell ends and the creature awakes (if it has more than 0 hit points). When the spell ends or is dismissed, the target remains unconscious and must be awoken normally. While sleepwalk allows an unconscious creature to move, it does not awaken the creature, nor does it stabilize or otherwise heal them. A disabled creature that moves about while under the effects of this spell does not start dying again as a result of this movement. And there are more. In all these cases, all we are told is the subject is limited to a "single move action' and no specific text allowing free, swift, or immediate. So are we to understand that in every one of these cases, no free, swift, or immediate actions are allowed, nor is swapping one's move action for an action taking less time allowed? I think this is a legitimate question.
EDIT:
And technically, we can add Zombies to this list.
PRD Zombies wrote: Staggered (Ex): Zombies have poor reflexes and can only perform a single move action or standard action each round. A zombie can move up to its speed and attack in the same round as a charge action. The monster entry doesn't say they have the Staggered Condition, it provides its own definition of "staggered" and specifically does not say that swift, free, or immediate actions are allowed.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
PRD wrote: Battle Fury (Su): At 20th level, the dervish dancer can unleash a whirlwind of blows while performing a battle dance. As a full-round action, he can take a single move action and unleash a single attack at his highest bonus against each target within his reach during any point of his move, up to a maximum number of attacks equal to the dervish dancer's character level. This movement provokes attacks of opportunity as normal, and replaces deadly performance. Battle Fury is a full round action and allows the character to take a single move action(the actual action named move not just any action with the move type) and make a single attack as part of that full round action. Full round actions, which Battle Fury is, do not prevent the use of swift, free or immediate actions.
PRD wrote: Manacle Barbs: Barbs added to these manacles wound a captive who does more than move slowly and with care. A creature secured in barbed manacles takes 1 point of piercing damage if it takes more than a single move action during a round. Rough movement of any kind, such as being struck in combat or falling prone, likewise causes 1 point of damage. Attempting to break out of barbed manacles with a Strength check deals 1d4 points of piercing damage to the captive regardless of the success of the attempt. This even gives the example of falling prone (a free action) as causing damage. So yes, depending on whether the GM thinks they constitute "rough movement"; swift, free and immediate actions may cause damage.
PRD wrote: Irresistible Dance: ...With either form, you can direct the creature like a marionette as a move action, causing it to take a single move action at half its speed along the path you specify. This is indicating what you can cause the creature to do not limiting its actions. You are able to force it to use its move action (the type) to perform a move action (the actual action named move) at 1/2 speed. You can't force it to do 2 move actions, just one. What else it does is up to it. It is telling that you didn't quote the entire spell that describes the creature also being able to attack and use skills while under the effects of the spell and that the movement doesn't even count toward its normal movement for the turn. So it retains all of its actions you can just force it to move in a direction of your choosing at 1/2 speed.
PRD wrote: You compel an unconscious or sleeping creature to rise and move in a half-awake state. The target creature staggers about if led or guided, but remains helpless for all other purposes. The subject moves at half speed and is limited to a single move action each round. It is not capable of moving at a higher rate of speed or taking actions other than movement except by magical assistance, and automatically fails any Dexterity- or Strength-based skill checks. If the creature takes any damage while sleepwalking it must make a new saving throw or the spell ends and the creature awakes (if it has more than 0 hit points). When the spell ends or is dismissed, the target remains unconscious and must be awoken normally. While sleepwalk allows an unconscious creature to move, it does not awaken the creature, nor does it stabilize or otherwise heal them. A disabled creature that moves about while under the effects of this spell does not start dying again as a result of this movement. Again it is right there in the ability. The creature can take a single move action IF guided or led and is otherwise considered HELPLESS. So yes no swift, free or immediate actions.
None of your examples are legitimate concerns given the new FAQ. They are all very clear.
OldSkoolRPG wrote:
Battle Fury is a full round action and allows the character to take a single move action(the actual action named move not just any action with the move type) and make a single attack as part of that full round action. Full round actions, which Battle Fury is, do not prevent the use of swift, free or immediate actions. No, that's not what it says. The PDT told us that NC means what it says. You are limited to what is provided. Battle Fury limits you to a single move action and an attack. That's it. Staggered and Disabled explicitly allow free, swift, immediate, even though one can choose a Standard action.
The same is true for all the examples I've given. You are limited to what is explicitly allowed because that is the exact logic that was used in the PDT FAQ.
EDIT:
Quote: This even gives the example of falling prone (a free action) as causing damage. So yes, depending on whether the GM thinks they constitute "rough movement"; swift, free and immediate actions may cause damage. Except that fear of "rough movement" is not what is limiting you to a move action. The rules are unambiguous. Any thing not a move action causes damage. It doesn't say, "may' it said it does cause damage. Per the PDT FAQ, dropping your sword should cause damage because it isn't a single move action. Speaking should cause damage because it's more than a single move action. Absurd? Absolutely, but that's what the rule says and as several in this thread have repeatedly pointed out, the rule doesn't have to make sense, it just has to work.
Quote: It is telling that you didn't quote the entire spell that describes the creature also being able to attack and use skills while under the effects of the spell and that the movement doesn't even count toward its normal movement for the turn. It is not "telling" because that part of the spell is irrelevant. What matters is what actions the caster can make the target perform as a "single move action."
|
