| 37 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cowering: The character is frozen in fear and can take no actions. A cowering character takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class and loses his Dexterity bonus (if any).
Dazed: The creature is unable to act normally. A dazed creature can take no actions, but has no penalty to AC.
Stunned: A stunned creature drops everything held, can't take actions, takes a –2 penalty to AC, and loses its Dexterity bonus to AC (if any).
In the game the conditions listed above say you can not take actions. I am sure they mean you can not use the game term of "actions", but they may also apply to the non-game definition and other cases that are not directly spelled out.
In a game similar to Pathfinder that shall not be named there were other things you could not do. Examples follow from official sources:
In general, if you cannot use a standard action during your turn, you also cannot make an attack of opportunity during someone else's turn. When the notes on conditions in Part One say that you cannot act (for example, when stunned), you cannot make an attack of opportunity.
You can take a 5-foot step anytime you don't otherwise move across the battlefield. You usually take a 5-foot step before, after, or during another action. The rules don't say so, but it's best to assume that you cannot take a 5-foot step unless you can take at least a move action during your turn.
Here is my question for the PDT team, and for everyone who is curious to FAQ. Do these(cowering, dazed, stunned) conditions allow someone to take a 5-foot step, take attacks of opportunity or other non-actions such as delaying.
PS: The 3.5 rules are simply there for precedence in case anyone is wondering why others would make such statements. I do no leg in this race with regard to if they are upheld or not. I just want an answer.
I would assume that the wording, if the silly named "no actions" were to be allowed, would be.
"A creature stunned( or what ever) Can only take no actions."
To say that you Can take no actions either meens that there is no kind of action allowed, not even no actions. Or that "no actions" are allowed, but that case there is no restrictions on what other actions you Can take.
Did that make sense?
And i FAQed it.
I would assume that the wording, if the silly named "no actions" were to be allowed, would be.
"A creature stunned( or what ever) Can only take no actions."
To say that you Can take no actions either meens that there is no kind of action allowed, not even no actions. Or that "no actions" are allowed, but that case there is no restrictions on what other actions you Can take.
Did that make sense?
And i FAQed it.
I really wish Paizo would italicize game text so we know when they are not using the standard dicionary use of a word.
I understand what you mean, and thanks for the FAQ. :)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I FAQ'd this, but it makes me sad that people would feel like they need an official answer to a ridiculous question like this. I miss the days when common sense and table variation was assumed and considered good.
I should note that if delaying is possible then arguably any spell that causes a 1 turn no-action status effect becomes a lot worse (like Daze). It would be possible to delay until just before the caster's turn the moment after the effect ends, which could negate the spell entirely depending on how the order of the combatants' initiatives were (this assumes that it is possible to "slot" yourself before, after or between creatures/effects on the same initiative count, but ruling otherwise opens up it's own can of worms).
In any case, you have an FAQ from me.
If it's not an action (5-foot step, delay), you can do it. That should be obvious. According to the Melee Tactics Toolbox, an attack of opportunity is a free action. However, it should be common sense that if you have a condition that renders you unable to attack normally, you cannot make an attack of opportunity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it's not an action (5-foot step, delay), you can do it.
...is this a joke? You actually believe that's the right way to run things? You're not just being pedantic and trying to prove some point about what happens when you don't use legal-precise rules language?
If it's not an action (5-foot step, delay), you can do it. That should be obvious. According to the Melee Tactics Toolbox, an attack of opportunity is a free action. However, it should be common sense that if you have a condition that renders you unable to attack normally, you cannot make an attack of opportunity.
I seem to remember the melee tactics toolbox aoo=free action thing possibly being an error, because saying that aoos are free actions create a lot of problems - number 1 of which is that free actions can't be taken out of turn so aoos become pretty much useless unless you can make someone provoke on your turn.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I FAQ'd this, but it makes me sad that people would feel like they need an official answer to a ridiculous question like this. I miss the days when common sense and table variation was assumed and considered good.
Read: "I miss the days that never really existed."
;P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gm: your turn remember you are dazed
Smartass player: ok it says here thst "pedantic explanations from this thread"
Gm: ok so what actions do you do?
Player: I take a 5ft step as a non actiom so i can get my aoo as a free action on him
Gm: Well you said you do two actions and the text says you cannot take actions.
Player: "2 hours of more pedantic manure thatd get you looked at weird for, even in law school"
Gm: Right, right you win. So, the guy 5ft steps away, summons T rex that Vital Strikes you..lets see..yes, mmh critical.
Player: ..what, Im dead...
Gm: Yes, yes you are. Also, dead means dead, no actions even if they are free, non or vegan. /pedantic sunglasses
...Is how to deal with too much loophole abuse and ruleslawyering. I bet your players will be STUNNED.
(disclaimer: this is a fun story more about pushing your luck and tiring the gm than anything else. If new, remember, discussions from the Rules forum can, and will, get your character killed.)
It does make a little sense to define how you are unable to do anything, yet somehow you are not helpless. Why is it you cannot coup de grace a helpless, stunned, or dazed character, for example? Clearly they can't do "nothing" or they'd be helpless. There's a very small subset of things that are considered "not an action", as well.
I understand if someone splits hairs to gain an advantage here that's really munchkin-y, but some GM's are themselves very meticulous and want to let their players know when they have limited options they otherwise wouldn't have, and again, I REALLY would like to know what the dividing line is that keeps someone from not being helpless in these three conditions if they're supposed to be unable to do anything, yet somehow can defend themselves, albeit much much worse than usual in 2/3 cases.
No mention of nauseated? Could use clarification on that one too.
That's been heavily debated and FAQ-requested here.
It does make a little sense to define how you are unable to do anything, yet somehow you are not helpless. Why is it you cannot coup de grace a helpless, stunned, or dazed character, for example? Clearly they can't do "nothing" or they'd be helpless. There's a very small subset of things that are considered "not an action", as well.
I understand if someone splits hairs to gain an advantage here that's really munchkin-y, but some GM's are themselves very meticulous and want to let their players know when they have limited options they otherwise wouldn't have, and again, I REALLY would like to know what the dividing line is that keeps someone from not being helpless in these three conditions if they're supposed to be unable to do anything, yet somehow can defend themselves, albeit much much worse than usual in 2/3 cases.
You have to specifically be helpless or have a condition such as being unconscious. The intent of dazed and stunned is to take away your actions, not set you up for a a CdG.
I missed the nauseated condition when I made this, but since it has its own FAQ I hope it gets taken care of also. Once Paizocon is over I might shoot a message to Mark to see if he can take care of both of these at the same time.
but a 5' step is very clearly spelled out as not being an action. Thus, legally you should be able to take it--
True enough. When I stand up too fast I become dazed. I often take a 5ft step back afterwards as I try to clear my head. I do not, however, delay and wait for something to happen; I do not have the mental capacity to make such a choice until after I am no longer dazed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
but a 5' step is very clearly spelled out as not being an action. Thus, legally you should be able to take it--True enough. When I stand up too fast I become dazed. I often take a 5ft step back afterwards as I try to clear my head. I do not, however, delay and wait for something to happen; I do not have the mental capacity to make such a choice until after I am no longer dazed.
You wait until your head clears before trying to do anything. That would be a course of action describable as delaying until the effect wears off. It could also be described as effectively skipping your turn until the effect wears off. Both are justifiable by the fluff of the conditions.
Gm: your turn remember you are dazed
Smartass player: ok it says here thst "pedantic explanations from this thread"
Gm: ok so what actions do you do?
Player: I take a 5ft step as a non actiom so i can get my aoo as a free action on him
Gm: Well you said you do two actions and the text says you cannot take actions.
Player: "2 hours of more pedantic manure thatd get you looked at weird for, even in law school"
Gm: Right, right you win. So, the guy 5ft steps away, summons T rex that Vital Strikes you..lets see..yes, mmh critical.
Player: ..what, Im dead...
Gm: Yes, yes you are. Also, dead means dead, no actions even if they are free, non or vegan. /pedantic sunglasses...Is how to deal with too much loophole abuse and ruleslawyering. I bet your players will be STUNNED.
(disclaimer: this is a fun story more about pushing your luck and tiring the gm than anything else. If new, remember, discussions from the Rules forum can, and will, get your character killed.)
Player: "Pendantic rules lawyering that explains that the "dead" condition does not stop a character from taking actions".
Frankly though, that post was rather condescending and insulting. You may not like that it's a valid question, but a 5' step is very clearly spelled out as not being an action. Thus, legally you should be able to take it-- but it's easy to see it as an oversight that should be corrected. And the best way to get it corrected to prevent discussions like your quote is to hit the FAQ button.
I said it was more about bickering with a gm on fine details to slip away from a condition. It happens way too often sometimes and only serves to stop the game. If the gm wants you to be hit with that daze, and you start a long argument about it in the hopes to evade fate, he can still do whatever he had planned, and probably do worse to you thanks to that. (note: this isnt to say you or anyone here does that).
However, you are right it was too personal, sorry for that, just a reminder to try not bring certain things to the table. This is also the rules forum so these questions are valid and legitimate.
Still think that these conditions, including Nauseated (for which we had a massive thread recently) are very obvious, and reading between the lines is just far fetched. As always, the language they use for move/actions/etc could be clearer.
I dont see how or why anyone would be able to 5ft step while stunned, a condition that makes them drop everything they are carrying.
You have to specifically be helpless or have a condition such as being unconscious. The intent of dazed and stunned is to take away your actions, not set you up for a a CdG.It does make a little sense to define how you are unable to do anything, yet somehow you are not helpless. Why is it you cannot coup de grace a helpless, stunned, or dazed character, for example? Clearly they can't do "nothing" or they'd be helpless. There's a very small subset of things that are considered "not an action", as well.
I understand if someone splits hairs to gain an advantage here that's really munchkin-y, but some GM's are themselves very meticulous and want to let their players know when they have limited options they otherwise wouldn't have, and again, I REALLY would like to know what the dividing line is that keeps someone from not being helpless in these three conditions if they're supposed to be unable to do anything, yet somehow can defend themselves, albeit much much worse than usual in 2/3 cases.
I know that, it's why I brought it up as an example of what it means to TRULY be unable to do literally anything, and how stunned, cowering, and dazed are different.
If it's not an action (5-foot step, delay), you can do it. That should be obvious. According to the Melee Tactics Toolbox, an attack of opportunity is a free action. However, it should be common sense that if you have a condition that renders you unable to attack normally, you cannot make an attack of opportunity.I seem to remember the melee tactics toolbox aoo=free action thing possibly being an error, because saying that aoos are free actions create a lot of problems - number 1 of which is that free actions can't be taken out of turn so aoos become pretty much useless unless you can make someone provoke on your turn.
You cannot take a free action outside of your turn unless it says that it can be taken outside of your turn. Attack of opportunity can be explicitly taken outside of your turn fulfilling this condition so this is not a problem.
Hrm. After reading this, I'm gonna vote for 'No actions=go grab a sandwich IRL and wait for the effect to wear off'. So, no five foot adjusts, no talking, no AoO.
Anything else just opens up situations that can be abused by players and make the conditions not do what they _seem_ to be intended to do.
All arguments about these conditions (and nauseated) rely on defining 'action' as a game mechanic, and ignoring the obvious intention of the designers...
One thing I find helpful with rules interpretations is to 'zoom out' and look at the thing in a bigger context, rather than 'zoom in' and fixate on one word, or part of a sentence.