| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would hope that anyone who had this issue in-game would simply take a time out and chat it over with the GM calmly and intelligently. Would any of you really sit for hours debating the pedantical minutia of what a book of *suggested rules* says? If that's fun for you, cool, but wasn't the reason you came in the first place to play Pathfinder?
It's simply a case-by-case basis, and could go something like this:
Player - "My fighter is nauseated--can he just drop his sword so he can hold his guts while he pukes?"
GM - "Sure, if you want. Why would you want to drop the sword though? That seems like it wouldn't really help at all."
Player - "Well, Player 2 was just disarmed and doesn't have a sword, so I was hoping he could pick up mine."
GM - "That might actually make it more difficult for him to retrieve it, not to mention the puke all over the sword. How about you hold onto it, and he just takes a move action to take it from your hand?"
Player - "Oh yeah, that does make sense."
While it's obvious that GMs exist, and can make decisions in-game, this is the Rules Questions forum, where we discuss Rules Questions and what the rules actually say.
It is never helpful in a question about game rulings to say "Well the GM could come up with his own changes to the rules, so why does anyone need clarity on the rules of the game?"
My apologizes, I am definitely on the wrong side of the tracks here. Not my kind of people.
I retract my prior post and further apologize for my unintentional trolling of your thread.
While it's obvious that GMs exist, and can make decisions in-game, this is the Rules Questions forum, where we discuss Rules Questions and what the rules actually say.
It is never helpful in a question about game rulings to say "Well the GM could come up with his own changes to the rules, so why does anyone need clarity on the rules of the game?"
As far as I know, every book has at least a paragraph right at the start about how the game should be fun and you should always talk things over with the GM, and since we can't find enough written text to clarify this to 110% as some want, it seems to me this falls under the category of "talk things over".
We've been through this, a thousand times, we won't find written rules for Every.Single.Possible.Thing that may or may not happen, so instead of knocking at the Devs door trying to find if the fingers of a Ogre are too large to poke a gnome's eyes, just deal with it or hit the FAQ button.
Btw, Game Master, I agree with your previous statement, before you puked over Tiaximus for saying "this is a minor detail, talk to the GM".
My apologizes, I am definitely on the wrong side of the tracks here. Not my kind of people.
I retract my prior post and further apologize for my unintentional trolling of your thread.
I apologize as well, for my post was rather harsh. I was taking a bit of frustration out on you that's really aimed at the copious mass of posts like those that keep cropping up. I'm sure it wasn't your intention, but all the posts that say "But the GM might rule X" are unintentionally off-topic, and despite the best intentions of their authors, contribute little to nothing to a debate/discussion of the rules of the game.
This particular thread bore more fruit than most - the find that an earlier poster made where the rules define how free actions interact with restricted actions actually brought new and very relevant information into the discussion. Before I'd read that rule, I was undecided on this issue. I'm very pleased by the fact that the game provided an answer on what was, at first, very muddled.
I understand. I wasn't offering any concrete solution, and looking at the spirit of the argument, my contribution was just extending it instead of clarifying.
I don't think the ruling should go any particular way--the rules are set by a very specific set of people and it's their interpretation of fantasy and imagination that we are playing by. My only point is that open, thoughtful communication between players and GM could help fill in the gaps where some details fall into the cracks.
At least until errata is posted, a ruling is made by one of the writers, or a new edition corrects it.
|
reading... reading... Laughing at posts... Reading...
OK, here is the deal. You don't concentrate on dropping a weapon. It happens automatically (usually to the character detriment) when one is stunned. If a nauseated character chooses to do so, dropping a weapon should not be a problem.
Breathing and other normal human conditions are not something requiring concentration. It is done as a normal part of continuing to live. It is enough that you can do nothing but move and must be assumed that a part of being Nauseated is actually dedicating some concentration to continue living. That would likely include continuing to breath.
I would say that spells are lost if one was in the middle of casting it.
It gets to the point where looking into rules with a magnifying glass makes playing the game almost impossible.
Breathing requires attention, therefore you can't breathe, you suffocate.
Or you could realize that attention refers to things that actually require concentration, like casting spells, and not stuff that doesn't, like mounting horses.
It's like people don't even know what the word nauseated means. It DOES NOT mean you are in the act of puking. FFS, the Pathfinder description spells it out for you, 'stomach distress'. Heck, I get that every time I fly, and I don't end up in the aisle in a fetal position.
You are not helpless. Nor do you take a penalty on your AC, nor do you even lose your DEX to AC.
So, how the hell does that square with being 'almost helpless'?
So you start suffocating every time you go to sleep? Breathing does NOT require concentration.
You're right, you aren't almost helpless with this, it is FAR less deadly than other effects like... Death... Paralysis... Petrification... At least you are allowed to still move!
In regards to dropping weapons or other actions that are normally free... Being nauseated prevents them. Says so right in the text, looks pretty simple to me. Specific>General and all that...
The designers made it this way. Disagreeing with it doesn't change what is written.
It seems silly, so some people disagree with it, but fireballs and magical invisibility seem silly to me, should I argue that they shouldn't work the way they are written?
Look at it this way: You get hit with a nausea effect, your stomach (and hands) cramp up with sickening sicky sickness, magically inflicted and super icky, OH NO! All you can do is stagger about a little bit and wait for the condition to pass.
Much less crippling than, say, getting hit with a Death effect, right?
I mean, once you're dead, you stay dead. Nausea can be cured WAY more easily.
Nausea-probably a Fort save
Death effect-probably a Fort save
If I was casting, Nausea would be the humane/non-lethal option. Why all the anger at it? At least you ain't dead.
The wording of those conditions is very legacy from older editions.Precisely! The Nauseated condition hasn't seen revision since in the introduction of swift/immediate and how they redefined free actions. This occurred midway through 3.5 and 3.5 has the same problem.
Pathfinder was written with an understanding of free actions, and Nausea explicitly denies them.
Citing the flaws of a different system doesn't make the condition of Nausea change in any way...
Large amounts of the CRB were cut-and-pasted from the OGL D&D 3.5 rules. They didn't go over all of them with a fine-toothed comb looking for possible contradictions or misinterpretations.
Challenge: using only the rules, make it logical for me why I can spend my action to stand up, but I can't spend my action to fall prone.
If your interpretation can't do this, I think it's safe to assume that your interpretation is wrong.
Here's my interpretation: Stop reading it like a lawyer.
The "only" in Nauseated is talking about the restricted activity. Normally, when you have a condition that restricts your actions, you get to choose: Standard or Move. In this case, it is limiting THAT choice, you can only choose Move. It isn't applying to the other aspects of restricted activity, it is only talking about that choice. The other aspects apply.
This interpretation you can use Free and Swift actions, allowing you to both stand up and fall down.
My interpretation produces results that are internally consistent and logical outcomes.
I could care less how you parse out the words. Provide an interpretation that results in consistent and logical outcomes.
|
Should a nauseated character also be allowed to take swift actions (as they can be taken whenever free actions can be)?
i.e. Can a nauseated creature cast quickened spells? This doesn't strike me as quite right either.
They can take swift actions, but cannot use quickened spells, as nauseated forbids casting spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They can take swift actions, but cannot use quickened spells, as nauseated forbids casting spells.Should a nauseated character also be allowed to take swift actions (as they can be taken whenever free actions can be)?
i.e. Can a nauseated creature cast quickened spells? This doesn't strike me as quite right either.
True enough.
How about Supernaturals, SLAs, or other abilities that can be taken as a swift action?
Some of these types of things don't feel like they would be appropriate to allow during the nauseated condition.
Nauseated prevents anything requiring concentration. What that means is left as a GM call (see raging barbarian threads for some possible suggestions though). For me personally, activating an SLA or SU (in general) would require concentration. As would activating many magic items. But there may be some cases where I'd rule differently if the situation presented itself.
We have game terms that imply levels of "focus", for example the Concentration rules and the "Taking 10" rules. For something to be restricted (ie. available action type, but disallowed specifically) I think it should have to fall under one of those categories, or be excessively similar.
|
The wording of those conditions is very legacy from older editions.Precisely! The Nauseated condition hasn't seen revision since in the introduction of swift/immediate and how they redefined free actions. This occurred midway through 3.5 and 3.5 has the same problem.
Actually, the 3.5 version of Nauseated is the same as PF's (it was cut & paste), except for a line that got missed (it happened a lot in the move from 3.5 to PF).
What was the line that got missed? It was right at the end: where the PF version ends with '...only a single move action', the 3.5 version continues in brackets, '...except for free actions, but not quickened spells'.
So, to say that the 'no free actions' rule has existed since 3.5 is the opposite of the truth.
The fix is obvious: reinstate the missing clause.
Alternate solution:
Interpret rules in such a way as they make sense in their outcomes.
Alternate alternate solution:
Assume that the bit explicitly allowing free actions was omitted for good reason, but that the designers thought that "only a move action" would reasonably be interpreted as restricted activity, which does have the verbiage about free actions in it and didn't really need restating, goodness me we managed to chop some words out of our nearly-600 page book!
Do people get this wound up about other conditions that render you even less able to do stuff?
If a GM decides to ignore what is written in the book and allow free/quick actions while Nauseated, all the more power to him/her.
Using the rules as written doesn't make me a 'rules lawyer', it makes me a consistent and reliable GM. My players know what to expect when they come to the table, because we all have the same books...
Do I _like_ how Nausea works? No. It's stupid.
You should be able to drop weapons, fall over or speak short sentences. It makes NO sense that you can't. But you can't. That's how it is written.
This is a game where people can stop time, fly and shoot fireballs at people, logic does NOT have a place here.
What people are debating is how they THINK it should work. The rules (as written) are pretty clear.
The original question is asking whether or not you can take free or swift actions while nauseated. The answer, according to the text in the book, is no.
Except it's not actually in the RAW, is it? There's a sentence that is open to interpretation. You are CHOOSING the interpretation that results in situations you are admit are stupid.
Me: There's a limited amount of pizza, you're only allowed 2 slices.
You: Well, I want one slice, but you said I'm only allowed to take 2. *takes 2 slices*
Restricted Activity
In some situations, you may be unable to take a full round's worth of actions. In such cases, you are restricted to taking only a single standard action or a single move action (plus free and swift actions as normal). You can't take a full-round action (though you can start or complete a full-round action by using a standard action; see below).
That's the general rule. Now, Nauseated is a specific condition with the word "only" included in it. There are 2 ways to interpret that "only"
Restricted Activity
In some situations, you may be unable to take a full round's worth of actions. In such cases, you are restricted to taking only a single move action (plus free and swift actions as normal). You can't take a full-round action.
or
Restricted Activity
In some situations, you may be unable to take a full round's worth of actions. In such cases, you are restricted to taking only a single move action. You can't take a full-round action.
Now, one of these interpretations results in stupid outcomes (as you put it) and the other does not. I'm having a difficult time coming up with reasons why we should purposely choose to include rules with stupid outcomes. Maybe you can help me out as to how that makes for a better game?
It isn't about being a consistent GM, to be a consistent GM that your players can rely on merely requires you to communicate changes to rules prior to play beginning. Saying something like "I've changed the ruling on Nauseated, you can now take some free/swift actions as long as they don't require focus or concentration, we'll use rules like Take 10 and Concentration to help determine what qualifies for that."
Sounds like a pretty reasonable and consistent GM to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's obvious the Devs purposely omitted the bit that allowed free actions to punish the rules creeps who can't work this out by themselves.
Using the rules as written doesn't make me a 'rules lawyer', it makes me a consistent and reliable GM. My players know what to expect when they come to the table, because we all have the same books...
Do I _like_ how Nausea works? No. It's stupid.
My players know what to expect because I tell them what house rules I'm using. Do I like how the rules work in my games? Yes. If I didn't, I would change them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Once again, so long as you use all of the rules, not just some of them, free and swift actions are already allowed while nauseated. There is a general rule which explicitly declares that free and swift actions are allowed during "Restricted Activity."
Though I suppose it is obvious now that no one is interested in changing their mind, despite having rules that contradict the position they've taken.
Once again, so long as you use all of the rules, not just some of them, free and swift actions are already allowed while nauseated. There is a general rule which explicitly declares that free and swift actions are allowed during "Restricted Activity."
Though I suppose it is obvious now that no one is interested in changing their mind, despite having rules that contradict the position they've taken.
You are correct if you don't enforce Specific>General.
I go by what the condition says.
Once again, so long as you use all of the rules, not just some of them, free and swift actions are already allowed while nauseated. There is a general rule which explicitly declares that free and swift actions are allowed during "Restricted Activity."
Though I suppose it is obvious now that no one is interested in changing their mind, despite having rules that contradict the position they've taken.
You are correct if you don't enforce Specific>General.
I go by what the condition says.
You're ignoring the fact that I've actually addressed the Specific>General issue and leave it intact.
Nauseated is addressing the statement "you may choose a standard or move action". It isn't addressing the "(plus free and swift actions as normal)".
Specific>General = fulfilled
You are choosing to apply the condition more broadly than it should be and it results in rules consequences that are by your own words "stupid".
Note, you are CHOOSING this. It isn't being forced on you. You are choosing it.
Once again, so long as you use all of the rules, not just some of them, free and swift actions are already allowed while nauseated. There is a general rule which explicitly declares that free and swift actions are allowed during "Restricted Activity."
Though I suppose it is obvious now that no one is interested in changing their mind, despite having rules that contradict the position they've taken.
You are correct if you don't enforce Specific>General.
I go by what the condition says.You're ignoring the fact that I've actually addressed the Specific>General issue and leave it intact.
Nauseated is addressing the statement "you may choose a standard or move action". It isn't addressing the "(plus free and swift actions as normal)".
Specific>General = fulfilled
You are choosing to apply the condition more broadly than it should be and it results in rules consequences that are by your own words "stupid".
Note, you are CHOOSING this. It isn't being forced on you. You are choosing it.
My lack of understanding stems from the fact that you are quoting the entry for restricted actions for some reason.
Nauseated has its own entry, which is specific.
We all know english is a complicated and strange language, using pizza to prove a point about a game condition doesn't really settle any arguments...
The word 'only' is a limiter. You may 'only' take a move action.
It doesn't say "you may only take a move or free or swift action".
The fact that swift and free actions are 'lesser' actions aren't relevant here.
Nauseated tells you what you can and cannot do. Free actions aren't listed, neither are swift. Move is, but with restrictions.
Somebody earlier listed a Paladin's ability to cure Nausea on themselves as a reason that Nausea should allow free actions. I disagree.
I think a Paladin can use a swift action on themselves to cure Nausea because the book allows them to do so.
This doesn't change how Nausea works.
Paladins are allowed an exception to the rule because Specific>General.
Nauseated is a specific rule which kicks in when that particular condition is applied to a character.
Restricted activity is a specific rule that kicks in when a characters actions become limited for a variety of possible reasons.
Both are specific rules, there is no Specific > General negation here.
As to paladins, there is no language suggesting that if the paladin can't take a swift action because of nauseated that he would be able to do so if he has that particular mercy. If the paladin can't take the swift action, then he cannot take the swift action. Nothing in the language of mercy's or LoH adds (or removes) what actions a paladin may take.
LoH allows a paladin to use LoH on self as a swift, or on another as a move - but the paladin still must have those actions available to him to be able to do either.
Nauseated is a specific rule which kicks in when that particular condition is applied to a character.
Restricted activity is a specific rule that kicks in when a characters actions become limited for a variety of possible reasons.
Both are specific rules, there is no Specific > General negation here.
As to paladins, there is no language suggesting that if the paladin can't take a swift action because of nauseated that he would be able to do so if he has that particular mercy. If the paladin can't take the swift action, then he cannot take the swift action. Nothing in the language of mercy's or LoH adds (or removes) what actions a paladin may take.
LoH allows a paladin to use LoH on self as a swift, or on another as a move - but the paladin still must have those actions available to him to be able to do either.
So the case of the Paladin curing himself of Nausea is something we disagree on? I would allow it.
I don't understand the repeated reference to Restricted Activity... if afflicted by Nausea, the rules for Nausea apply... saying that
"Restricted activity is a specific rule that kicks in when a characters actions become limited for a variety of possible reasons."
would imply that you can partially ignore the conditions of any affect because you want to.
Having full hitpoints can limit your actions because there are effects that only trigger when you drop below a certain threshold.
I would be careful about applying your logic to the use of the Restricted Activity entry...
We all know english is a complicated and strange language, using pizza to prove a point about a game condition doesn't really settle any arguments...The word 'only' is a limiter. You may 'only' take a move action.
It doesn't say "you may only take a move or free or swift action".
You're ignoring an aspect of the word "only", and you're doing it purposely, because it serves your argument. English is a complicated language and the word 'only' can be used in MULTIPLE ways. In fact, some of those definitions of the word 'only' and how it can be used would suggest that your interpretation is wrong.
For example, in the sentence "you may only have 2 pieces of pizza" we know that it is highly likely that you are allowed to choose between 1 or 2 pieces, not that you can 2, but cannot take 1.
If you can't admit that that usage of the word exists, than your argument based on language is wrong, because your application of the rules of language is wrong.
The word 'only' can be used multiple ways, some of which support the inclusion of free/swift actions.
Can you conclusively prove that your interpretation of how the word is being used is correct?
Hint: you can't without a dev/designer quote.
So the case of the Paladin curing himself of Nausea is something we disagree on? I would allow it.
Oh, I would allow it as well, but I would allow it because I believe the rules allow it in the first place, not because I'd have to make a house rule for that specific scenario.
The repeated reference to restricted activity is because that is the rule that allows the paladin to swift action himself. It tells us what happens when a player is limited to 'only' a move or only a standard action. It is a specific rule that comes into play in those scenarios.
We all know english is a complicated and strange language, using pizza to prove a point about a game condition doesn't really settle any arguments...The word 'only' is a limiter. You may 'only' take a move action.
It doesn't say "you may only take a move or free or swift action".
You're ignoring an aspect of the word "only", and you're doing it purposely, because it serves your argument. English is a complicated language and the word 'only' can be used in MULTIPLE ways. In fact, some of those definitions of the word 'only' and how it can be used would suggest that your interpretation is wrong.
For example, in the sentence "you may only have 2 pieces of pizza" we know that it is highly likely that you are allowed to choose between 1 or 2 pieces, not that you can 2, but cannot take 1.
If you can't admit that that usage of the word exists, than your argument based on language is wrong, because your application of the rules of language is wrong.
The word 'only' can be used multiple ways, some of which support the inclusion of free/swift actions.
Can you conclusively prove that your interpretation of how the word is being used is correct?
Hint: you can't without a dev/designer quote.
The burden of proof doesn't lie on me to disprove your point... if you want to convince me that "only a move action" actually means "a move action, a free action or a swift action" then it is up to you.
I don't accept that a generic effect that can be caused by multiple things (Restricted Activity) is somehow more specific than a single effect that can be caused by multiple things... (Nausea).
Regardless, the creators of the game wrote out what it does, so when it is caused, that effect should be applied.
I didn't use a dev/designer quote because there is no need to. This thread has created two factions:
1)Those that treat Nausea as it is written (disallowing actions other than Move, even Move has restrictions)
2)Those that treat Nausea as it is written, but adding additional text that allows them to perform actions that aren't otherwise allowed by the additional text in the description.
I am on board with 1)
The condition of Nausea does not reference other rules such as Restricted Activity (they could have easily done this), it does not mention exceptions either. It just tells you what you can do.
"Restricted Activity" is an action type, not a condition... so I really really don't get why it keeps getting brought up in regards to Nausea... Nausea limits you to Move actions, not Restricted Activity actions (says so, right there in Nausea).
As for the word "only", I guess if you consider it a conjunction and not an adjective then you could read the description of Nausea differently, but it makes less sense if you do it that way...
Once again, so long as you use all of the rules, not just some of them, free and swift actions are already allowed while nauseated. There is a general rule which explicitly declares that free and swift actions are allowed during "Restricted Activity."
Though I suppose it is obvious now that no one is interested in changing their mind, despite having rules that contradict the position they've taken.
You are correct if you don't enforce Specific>General.
I go by what the condition says.
I still don't see how a rule that says you can only take move actions can be construed to specifically overrule a rule that says that when you can only take move actions, you can also take free actions.
Correct me if I am summarizing your argument wrongly, Malachi et al., but the better founded case against free actions argues that restricted activity never applies to Nauseated at all - based on disputing the parsing of the restricted activity definition. Arguing that it applies but is specifically overruled seems obviously wrong - for that you would need a specific overruling line, e.g. "while nauseated, you cannot even take free actions."
Alternate alternate solution:
Assume that the bit explicitly allowing free actions was omitted for good reason
The Reason: "PPP"
Price of Printed Paper
It was not worth wasting it on this.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Restricted Activity: In some situations, you may be unable to take a full round's worth of actions. In such cases, you are restricted to taking only a single standard action or a single move action (plus free and swift actions as normal)."
I read that as a compressed way of saying:
"Restricted Activity: In some situations, you may be unable to take a full round's worth of actions. In such cases, you are restricted to taking only a single standard action, or restricted to taking a single move action (you can always take free and swift actions as normal in these situations)."
In which case, Nauseated is an example of Restricted Activity and free actions are allowed even if not specified.
I can see that there are other ways of interpreting it, such as:
"Restricted Activity: In some situations, you may be unable to take a full round's worth of actions. In these situations, you are restricted to taking only a single standard action or a single move action plus free and swift actions as normal. Any situation where you cannot take a standard action, or cannot take free or swift actions, does not constitute Restricted Activity."
Or:
"Restricted Activity: In some situations, you may be unable to take a full round's worth of actions. In such cases, you are restricted to taking only a single standard action or restricted to taking only a single move action (plus free and swift actions as normal, unless the condition says otherwise)."
All three of these are legitimate ways someone might use the English language. But two of those interpretations lead somewhere stupid ("you can't drop your sword") and therefore should be rejected.
The burden of proof doesn't lie on me to disprove your point... if you want to convince me that "only a move action" actually means "a move action, a free action or a swift action" then it is up to you.
I could care less about burden of proof. I'm honestly done with trying to treat the game rules as some sort of legal document.
The rules need to make sense. The rules interpretation that you back does not make sense and results in stupid outcomes (as you put it). Therefore, I do not accept that interpretation.
If you want me to accept it, present me with an interpretation that does not result in stupid outcomes (as you describe them).
Nauseated, as a game term, does not fall under the game definition of restricted activity.
It is inappropriate to get around the written limits of the Nauseated condition by (mis)-reading a paragraph that does not even apply.
Based on this logic, the restricted activity paragraph is superfluous and applies to nothing, since the term appears exactly once and is never referenced anywhere else in the book.
Since that seems unlikely, you're probably wrong.