so while Nauseated I can pick up my weapon off the ground (move) but I can't drop it (free) ... I can stand up from prone (move) but I can't drop proneWow, re-reading Core, it seems like RAW supports this statement.
... My common sense is screaming to me, "NO!"
Please, somebody, prove me wrong. I really don't like what RAW is telling me.
Of course you can drip your weapon. There is always the manipulate an object move equivalent that, among other things, would include the dropping of a weapon. Usually you wouldn't use it for that, because you could just choose to use the free drop a weapon action, but since you can't take free actions, you might in this circumstance.
From the PRD:
Moving or manipulating an item is usually a move action.
This includes retrieving or putting away a stored item, picking up an item, moving a heavy object, and opening a door. Examples of this kind of action, along with whether they incur an attack of opportunity, are given in Table: Actions in Combat.
It's not always a move-equivalent. Usually it is, but the type of manipulation (in this case, drop an item, of which a weapon is,) is pre-defined in the table. Since the drop an item, a type of manipulation regarding an item, is a free action, RAW he can't do it.
Good effort trying to weasel it in, but the RAW clearly says otherwise.
Of course you can drip your weapon. There is always the manipulate an object move equivalent that, among other things, would include the dropping of a weapon. Usually you wouldn't use it for that, because you could just choose to use the free drop a weapon action, but since you can't take free actions, you might in this circumstance.
From the PRD:
Moving or manipulating an item is usually a move action.
This includes retrieving or putting away a stored item, picking up an item, moving a heavy object, and opening a door. Examples of this kind of action, along with whether they incur an attack of opportunity, are given in Table: Actions in Combat.
It's not always a move-equivalent. Usually it is, but the type of manipulation (in this case, drop an item, of which a weapon is,) is pre-defined in the table. Since the drop an item, a type of manipulation regarding an item, is a free action, RAW he can't do it.
Good effort trying to weasel it in, but the RAW clearly says otherwise.
Fine. I will use the manipulate an object action as a move to place my sword on the floor instead of dropping it. You quite clearly can get the sword out of your hand. You also quite clearly can't do it as a free action (and hence be able to do anything else that round.)
You are clearly trying to make RAW not make sense, rather than making any effort at all to make sense of RAW.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Time for a reality check. Everyone take some ipecac, have an observer make through notes on exactly what kinds of actions your are able to perform, and then post here. For science!
Way ahead of you, actions include:
Walking, Running, Falling, Crawling, Vomiting, Coughing, Hugging the Toilet, Vomiting, Futilely Trying to Clean it up, Vomiting, Crying, Vomiting, and Bargaining With God.
So that's it folks, that's all the actions you can perform with the nauseated condition. Well I'm off to begin my experimentation on the Dying Condition now!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Time for a reality check. Everyone take some ipecac, have an observer make through notes on exactly what kinds of actions your are able to perform, and then post here. For science!Way ahead of you, actions include:
Walking, Running, Falling, Crawling, Vomiting, Coughing, Hugging the Toilet, Vomiting, Futilely Trying to Clean it up, Vomiting, Crying, Vomiting, and Bargaining With God.
So that's it folks, that's all the actions you can perform with the nauseated condition. Well I'm off to begin my experimentation on the Dying Condition now!
Walking - move.
Running - Full round!
Falling - free, right?
Crawling - Full round.
Vomiting - ... gonna call that a standard action that requires a ranged touch attack, max range 5 feet, provokes, sickens if it strikes.
Coughing - Free, I guess.
Hugging the toilet - Grapple check is typically a standard action
Futilely Trying to Clean it up - Gonna go with Full-Round
Crying - Typically part of a bluff check, free action otherwise.
Bargaining With God - Typically takes one hour at a set point of the day, but can instead be a flurry of questions over the span of rounds that each recieve a yes/no answer... so... uhh.. yeah.
|
It says a single move action only. And talking is a free action. So no talking.And fair enough, ever tried talking while throwing up ;)
I used to work with a Russian who could projectile vomit in the middle of a conversation and pick up talking as if it were a minor interruption when he was finished expelling all his vodka.
|
|
I used to work with a Russian who could projectile vomit in the middle of a conversation and pick up talking as if it were a minor interruption when he was finished expelling all his vodka.It says a single move action only. And talking is a free action. So no talking.And fair enough, ever tried talking while throwing up ;)
Well yeah, but that's a Russian! What are you bringing up Russians for in a civilized conversation about what normal NON-superhuman people can do? What's wrong with you?!
|
|
Well yeah, but that's a Russian! What are you bringing up Russians for in a civilized conversation about what normal NON-superhuman people can do? What's wrong with you?!
The same person also told me the story of how during his tour of duty in Afghanistan one of his platoon mates took his own appendix out with a pen knife, vodka, and a needle and thread because the unit's doctor was so incompetent.
So hang on, free actions don't need to be taken in their own right, I believe? Unlike other actions which have to be taken independently, you can also perform a free action as part of taking another action. And you do have a move action.
So while you would be too out of it to be able to shout a warning during someone else's turn (taking a free action), you can moan and groan and take the gods' names in vain while you stumble along on your single move action way (performing a free action as part of taking your move action).
Or is that a bit too fine a comb for this?
|
|
So hang on, free actions don't need to be taken in their own right, I believe? Unlike other actions which have to be taken independently, you can also perform a free action as part of taking another action. And you do have a move action.
So while you would be too out of it to be able to shout a warning during someone else's turn (taking a free action), you can moan and groan and take the gods' names in vain while you stumble along on your single move action way (performing a free action as part of taking your move action).
Or is that a bit too fine a comb for this?
It's not too fine. That's actually the argument that brought on this thread. The counter-argument is that Specific Trumps General and therefore the Nauseated condition rules (being the more specific rule) saying the only action you can take is a move and nothing else trumps the free action rules (the more general rule) of being able to take free actions as part of another action.
I don't think it will make much difference in this argument, but I always thought of the nausea condition as more broad than just stomach distress. I know the description specifically mentions that, but aren't there non-stomach-affecting effects that cause the nauseated condition, such as distraction from swarms?
|
"Oh my god, my insides are on fir--Huruuuugh."
Interesting.
This is taking the analogy waaaaay to far, but, despite their general failure to finish sentences, they do generally manage to get their point across - note Peter understanding Brian's request to hold back his ears (talking = free action & grapple check = standard action) - and they each managed to fall down at some point (free action). Poor Pathfinder rule examples no doubt, but by RAW I'd have to say they're Sickened, not Nauseated.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This nausea-inducing chaotic neutral gnome prankster begs to disagree. A roomful of nauseated people, the more the better, can sometimes be absolutely hilarious!To be fair, no one enjoys being nauseated, so someone that purposely causes it is probably evil...
I did say probably. And, in context, I was talking about classes fixated on causing that condition.
|
|
"Oh my god, my insides are on fir--Huruuuugh."Interesting.
This is taking the analogy waaaaay to far, but, despite their general failure to finish sentences, they do generally manage to get their point across - note Peter understanding Brian's request to hold back his ears (talking = free action & grapple check = standard action) - and they each managed to fall down at some point (free action). Poor Pathfinder rule examples no doubt, but by RAW I'd have to say they're Sickened, not Nauseated.
Good god, if that's only Sickened I'd hate to see what Nauseated was lol
I actually knew some guys that did a bet just like this. Only the rules were, chug the ipecac and then immediately get into your own car, windows up and no buckets or anything inside the car allowed. Last one to blow, gets to get out of their car to do it...I knew some odd people in college...
Fine. I will use the manipulate an object action as a move to place my sword on the floor instead of dropping it. You quite clearly can get the sword out of your hand. You also quite clearly can't do it as a free action (and hence be able to do anything else that round.)
You are clearly trying to make RAW not make sense, rather than making any effort at all to make sense of RAW.
I really appreciate your arguments for allowing items to be placed on the floor while the character has the nauseated condition. I do agree that, by RAW, a character should be able to (gently?) place an item on the floor as a move action, or to lie on the ground slowly as a move action.
That said, not being allowed to quickly drop items or to quickly drop prone while nauseated goes against my common sense. Even while nauseated, the character has enough control to move 30 ft in a round, why wouldn't they have enough control to let go of a weapon, or to just collapse?
I think it is the quickly that is the thing. You can drop an item, but you can't do it as a free, because while puking the most anyone can do on a turn, besides vomit, is 1 thing, that can't be more complicated than a move, and can't be anything nauseated specifically prohibits. So you can pick up a sword, and you can drop a sword, but you can't do both in the same round, because most of your actions are concentrated on making peace with your deity.
The vast majority of things that can be done as a free action could also be accomplished by using a move, or clearly shouldn't be allowed while nauseated anyway. The corner case might be talking where probably some arguments could be made either way but the default you can't talk while nauseated is certainly not nonsensical.
|
|
| 18 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can absolutely take free and swift actions when nauseated!
It's right here in the core rule book.
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).
People keep getting bogged down on the word "only". They interpret the word to mean "to the exclusion of all else". But really, the word can designate an upper limit. For example, when your mom said you could only have two cookies, she didn't mean you were disallowed from eating a single cookie, or half a cookie. The word was used as an upper limit. The same is true for this case. You are restricted to not taking more than a single move action (plus free and swift actions as normal).
Of course the nature of free actions taken is still under GM discretion. So, offering to sell a potion to another player while nauseated may be more talking than the GM is willing to allow.
Still not convinced? Look at the text for free actions:
Free Action: Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM.
Free actions may be done as part of a move action.
The real issue here is whether the action requires attention, and that is purely a GM decision. But as a rule, being nauseated should not prohibit swift or free actions.
Gold Star for subway rat
|
|
It depends on the swift action. Several swift actions are things that require significantly more effort that moving. Casting a quickened spell, activating a blessing or domain power, entering a combat style, and talking all require focus & concentration, and should not be possible while projectile vomiting.
|
You can absolutely take free and swift actions when nauseated!
It's right here in the core rule book.
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).
Subway Rats quote of the Restricted Activity is a good find. I actually had not come across that before myself.
I also think that his comment on the word 'only' is quite valid. With this, I think that the nauseated definition spells it out clearly enough. From there, it is up to GMs to decide what actions are acceptable.
Putting game mechanics aside, the question really is 'How debilitating is it to be nauseated?' Is it realistic that you can draw a weapon (move action) when nauseated, but not drop one (free action)? Is it realistic that you can get up from the floor (move action), but not drop to the floor (free action)?
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.
So in the end, 'only' free/swift actions that do not require concentration/attention are allowed. Each GM will have to decide what that means.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It depends on the swift action. Several swift actions are things that require significantly more effort that moving. Casting a quickened spell, activating a blessing or domain power, entering a combat style, and talking all require focus & concentration, and should not be possible while projectile vomiting.
Well, the condition already disallows spell casting, so quickened spells are already restricted.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rules and commentary
Excellent rules-fu. Thanks.
Of course you can drip your weapon. There is always the manipulate an object move equivalent that, among other things, would include the dropping of a weapon. Usually you wouldn't use it for that, because you could just choose to use the free drop a weapon action, but since you can't take free actions, you might in this circumstance.
From the PRD:
Moving or manipulating an item is usually a move action.
This includes retrieving or putting away a stored item, picking up an item, moving a heavy object, and opening a door. Examples of this kind of action, along with whether they incur an attack of opportunity, are given in Table: Actions in Combat.
It's not always a move-equivalent. Usually it is, but the type of manipulation (in this case, drop an item, of which a weapon is,) is pre-defined in the table. Since the drop an item, a type of manipulation regarding an item, is a free action, RAW he can't do it.
Good effort trying to weasel it in, but the RAW clearly says otherwise.
Fine. I will use the manipulate an object action as a move to place my sword on the floor instead of dropping it. You quite clearly can get the sword out of your hand. You also quite clearly can't do it as a free action (and hence be able to do anything else that round.)
You are clearly trying to make RAW not make sense, rather than making any effort at all to make sense of RAW.
Show me where the bolded is in the action table and I will concede my point. Except it's not in the action table, meaning it's not a valid action to take, simply because the multiple methods of manipulating an item do not all share the same action type needed to take, that's both the RAW and the RAI.
We can do this dance all day, and you can sit there and say I'm twisting RAW all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that RAW not only supports what I'm saying, which may in fact be stupid. And I agree with you: Realistically speaking, it's stupid and makes no sense to enforce that ruling.
But you see the point I make when I say that is yet another reason why PFS gameplay causes badwrongfun in unintended mannerisms, and why having zero flexibility in how a condition is ran in regards to certain situations is the only reason why this badwrongfun exists, thanks to the rules of PFS gameplay that the GMs and such follow/establish, without double-taking it and thinking "Well, that makes no sense to how it should affect the game entities, I'll just run it as X."
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The promise of PFS is that the games are fair. PFS creates an environment where I can take the same character from GM to GM, from scenario to scenario, and expect the same application of the unambiguous rules.
My GM from the OP and I have had some time to discuss this, and he agrees that in a home game he'd have probably let my character talk while Nauseated; not just because of RAI but because he thought the idea was neat and that the rules should be bent from RAW for fun.
His worry at the time was setting a local PFS precedent for Nauseated that wasn't RAW. And considering that I'd agreed with his reading of Nauseated at the time, I'd have to say his priorities were in order.
But you see the point I make when I say that is yet another reason why PFS gameplay causes badwrongfun in unintended mannerisms, and why having zero flexibility in how a condition is ran in regards to certain situations is the only reason why this badwrongfun exists, thanks to the rules of PFS gameplay that the GMs and such follow/establish, without double-taking it and thinking "Well, that makes no sense to how it should affect the game entities, I'll just run it as X."Let's pretend your analysis is correct and we have some weird outcome. Pathfinder is filled with weird outcomes. There are thousands of pages of discussion in this forum alone with people debating the correctness of any particular clearly written rule.
The promise of PFS isn't to make sure that the rules are robust or satisfy every GM's idea of correctness. The promise of PFS is that the games are fair. PFS creates an environment where I can take the same character from GM to GM, from scenario to scenario, and expect the same application of the unambiguous rules. There is no absolutely no substitute for this outside of PFS on the global scale that PFS operates.
What you fail to comprehend is that every GM, if given the opportunity, would start changing whatever rule they deem to be at odds with their notion of what is right and proper. That means that every time I sit down at a table, I have no idea what is going to be allowed or what is going to be denied, simply because the current GM thinks they are smarter than the men and women who wrote the games.
Before PFS, I played homebrew games...and I hated it. GMs constantly want to reinvent the game. Or, they don't understand the rules as written and won't listen to any voice that's not their own. I have yet to play in a homebrew game where a GM didn't want to change an unambiguous rule...for whatever reason. PFS eliminates that headache. PFS is godsend for those of use who play-by-post because we have time to...
I wouldn't make the proposition that the games are "fair." Pathfinder, going by the number crunching, has resulted in several currently-written classes, such as the Rogue, Fighter, and core Monk, being significantly weaker than other classes that Paizo themselves have released. It's much more correct to say that PFS "follows the design values of Paizo," since a lot of what Paizo publishes throws balance out the window. Although PFS tries to regulate balance by banning certain content, i.e. QRS and DP, it falls short when it comes to conditions like Nauseated functioning the way the OP says it does in PFS. And you can't do anything for yourself about it.
You can't drink a potion to remove that condition, you can't dig through items in your bags to find something to remove the condition, you can't even use class features that don't take standard actions to remove the condition on your own (Paladins primarily, though I think they're immune to sickness and such at a certain point). You're basically forced to do nothing but run away, and while that can be a viable tactic in some scenarios, if it's a fight you can't really escape from, you're basically dead(weight).
That condition, certainly outweighs the capabilities of what a QRS or DP feat could possibly do. So it doesn't make sense to say it's meant to be a "fair" game.
PFS would rather have everyone subject to the same bad rule, then let GMs try to fix it on an individual basis.
I already understood that PFS uses its own chassis to be self-reliant, and that it has to be consistent in regards to providing a universal experience for all players. But as you said before that, Pathfinder is filled with weird outcomes, meaning consistency is a lot more scarce the more cornercase the situations become, and to be honest, the OP's scenario is one of the fold, and breaking it down, we get to the core of the inconsistency: the spelled out limitations of the Nauseated condition from the Pathfinder Core Rulebook, and to what exactly it all entails.
I understand PFS has limitations built in to satisfy their expectations they have set for their organized activities. But I'm more focused on the reasoning behind some of those limitations, and analyzing their reasoning in regards to, what I personally believe is, hypocrisy on their behalf, since a lot of their limitations, especially in regards to the Quick Runner's Shirt and Divine Protection feat, is one of their methods to curve power creep.
The bolded part, I find, is not an acceptable excuse to promote badly written rules for both the PFS chassis, as well as the RAW of Pathfinder; these excuses that create un-fun scenarios for their players, something which I am almost certain, does not fall under what the creators of PFS had intended, nor the desires of those who wish to participate in PFS gameplay.
I will reiterate my point: I'm not saying that Joe the Lone Ranger should get a free pass because he's just an average character; that is an individual basis, and is not what I'm getting at. I'm saying the ramifications of the Nauseated condition is the issue here, because as it's written, you cannot do what I stated before, which is dig through your bags, drink potions, drop items, use swift-action class abilities, and several others, which, logically and realistically speaking, should be doable.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Realistically? When was the last time you truly got really stomach twisting, agonizing nausea when the only thing you could think to do was run to the bathroom and stick your head in the toilet? or when you got nausea so bad that you puked right on the floor then and there?
How much were you able to do at that time?
I was able to conceive and execute a multi-stage plan to transport and dispose of unwanted digestive byproducts in the most socially and hygienically acceptable receptacle. ;)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just not sure I see the problem some people having with this.
Some GMs will let you talk while nauseated... some GMs won't. How is this a real issue. As far as I'm concerned this kind of thing is exactly why we have a GM in the first place. To make calls on this sort of issue. It doesn't bother me if one table I sit at the GM says I can't speak while under this condition, I play and adjust to the situation. If they tell me I can talk, then my character might say something in between bursts of vomit.
Even as far as PFS goes, I don't think we really need a universal ruling on this. What is wrong with letting GMs deal with it on a case by case basis.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I admit, I'm not entirely sure why the thread is still going now that it's been shown that the rules permit free (and swift) actions while nauseated.
Well, part of the reason might be that under either definition of 'only', there are different possible readings. For instance, if 'only' delineates an upper limit of 'standard action', is it still ok to take a standard, swift, and several free actions? I think that's the bigger question. No one (reasonable) doubts that you could take a swift or move action instead of a standard action. But can you take them in addition? Obviously not a move and standard, but a move and swift, or standard and swift? I say no. And given that the limit on free actions remains GM moderated even when not nauseated, I don't see that as being worth discussing.
Well, part of the reason might be that under either definition of 'only', there are different possible readings. For instance, if 'only' delineates an upper limit of 'standard action', is it still ok to take a standard, swift, and several free actions? I think that's the bigger question.
Yeah, if it was not clear, I was referring to subway rat's citation of the rules which address this larger question and answer it in the positive, not my own rather shakier offering.
|
|
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).
Makes sense to me, but unfortunately it fails Specific overrules General.
In light of the logic I've posted above, I don't think the sentence structure of RAW Nauseated was ever "intended" to prevent Free/Swift actions - just prevent Standard/Full (leaving "only" Move) actions. It's just the way it's written it certainly reads like Free/Swift are not allowed.
In the interest of clearing up the ambiguity, here's hoping Paizo responds...
The general rule cited above states that when you are restricted to taking only a single standard or a single move action, you can still take swift or free actions as normal.
Being nauseated restricts you to only a single move action.
Specific overrules general is a principle to apply when two rules disagree, but I don't actually see where the second rule is supposed to be in disagreement with the first, much less specifically overrule it. The second rule merely provides one of the circumstances to which the first rule applies.
Unless we're talking about the certain types of free and swift actions that nauseated does specifically address - e.g. spellcasting - in which case yes, the specific nausea rules about those types of free or swift actions would overrule the general allowance of free and swift actions.
The general rule cited above states that when you are restricted to taking only a single standard or a single move action, you can still take swift or free actions as normal.
Being nauseated restricts you to only a single move action.
Specific overrules general is a principle to apply when two rules disagree, but I don't actually see where the second rule is supposed to be in disagreement with the first, much less specifically overrule it. The second rule merely provides one of the circumstances to which the first rule applies.
Unless we're talking about the certain types of free and swift actions that nauseated does specifically address - e.g. spellcasting - in which case yes, the specific nausea rules about those types of free or swift actions would overrule the general allowance of free and swift actions.
In the general case of being limited to a Standard or Move Action, you can take Swift, Free, and Immediate Actions as normal, and you're correct.
But, "only" is a much more limiting factor when it comes to the Nauseated condition. When it says "The only action such a character can take is a single move action per turn," the specifics of the Nauseated condition, which say you get the move action, and nothing else because it otherwise breaks this rule, supersedes the general rules given for restricted activity, which say you can take Swift, Free, and Immediate Actions as normal.
That's basically a step-up from, other than the can take a single move action, the Helpless condition.
|
|
In the general case of being limited to a Standard or Move Action, you can take Swift, Free, and Immediate Actions as normal, and you're correct.
But, "only" is a much more limiting factor when it comes to the Nauseated condition. When it says "The only action such a character can take is a single move action per turn," the specifics of the Nauseated condition, which say you get the move action, and nothing else because it otherwise breaks this rule, supersedes the general rules given for restricted activity, which say you can take Swift, Free, and Immediate Actions as normal.
That's basically a step-up from, other than the can take a single move action, the Helpless condition.
Holy reading-too-deeply-into-it Batman!
