In the interest of making the boss-battles less d20-like and more Cthulhu-like, I’ve decided to add puzzles to the “final” boss-fights from each book. I feel it makes the fights a little bit video-game-ish, where there’s a fight mechanic the PCs have to do in order to beat the NPC. However, that’s something we don’t normally see in tabletop encounters, so I feel some limited cases, like once per book, reinforce the “weird” feel of a Lovecraftian AP.
For the Tatterman, first I moved the Hypnotic Dreams haunt from room F2 to the hallway between F2 & F3. Second, I boosted the Tatterman’s abilities, double HP, double DR, added energy resistance, added the advanced template, etc; I did not increase his damage output. Third, I linked the paintings to the Tatterman’s abilities: destroying this drawing removes his DR, shredding that painting removes his fear aura, wrecking another eliminates his protection from good SLA, etc.
As the PCs headed down the corridor, I reinforced the thematic link, reminding the players the images in the paintings were the same city where the PCs had been “killed” by the Tatterman back in session one. Then, after Ulver Zandalus was defeated, I described “black smoke”, almost like powdered charcoal, flowing from Ulver’s drawings into the Tatterman, reinvigorating the nightmare doppleganger. After beating them over the head with it, my PCs caught the clue.
I made destroying a drawing a standard action, although AoE effects, like burning hands or an alchemist’s bomb, can take out as many as they can hit. The “Damaging Objects” table on aonprd suggests each drawing has 2hp with no hardness. When burning a sketch removed the panicked effect on a PC who’d failed their save against the Tatterman’s fear aura, the party went to town on Zandalus’ gallery.
I just started running the "expanded and revised hardcover edition of Paizo’s Curse of the Crimson Throne Adventure Path" on Roll20. I thought I'd post a few of the adaptions I've made to the AP's plot, in case any other GMs like my ideas.
_
To begin with, I like adding foreshadowing into my games. First, I totally stole Charles Evans 25's suggestion of having Gaedren Lamm's soul stolen by Scarwall when the PCs 'kill' him in part one of Edge of Anarchy. As he died, Gaedren's spirit came out of his corpse and became a spectre (there are several unnamed spectres in Scarwall, now one of them is named Gaedren). As it prepared to attack the PCs, a giant ghostly dragon's claw (the same size as Gaedren) appeared from out of a ghostly portal, grabbed Gaedren-spectre, and hauled him off through the ghostly portal. My revenge-driven PCs were apoplectic, but my players loved it.
Second, I plan on having "Meliya Arkona" encounter the PCs, somewhere around "All the World's Meat" while they're nearby. Maybe they'll talk while the PCs are scouting the place, maybe she'll escape out the window half naked when the PCs interrupt her and Verik scoodly-pooping. We'll see what opportunities present themselves.
Third, playing off the idea presented by Tels, I plan on having the corpses of several dead failed Gray Maidens be found as raw materials in Rolth Lamm's Dead Warrens.
_
Moving on, I like to connect my PCs to the story more personally than the default plot will allow. One PC is Trinia Sabor’s first cousin (their mothers were sisters). I replaced Amin Jalento with another PC's NPC noble father. Another PC used to work for Devargo Barvasi. Another's dead Lost Love was Sabina Merrin's identical twin sister (they were estranged, and the dead Lost Love never mentioned she had a sister to the PC). Another was Framed, and Cressida Kroft was the one who cleared them. Another PC with a tribal background had traveled on the road to Korvosa with Thousand Bones.
These connections are in addition to the ones already built into the story, like Vencarlo Orisini scoping out one of the PCs to become the next Blackjack or the PC with the Harrowed feat inheriting Zarella Esmeranda's harrow deck.
_
Finally, I want to encourage the players to "take ownership" of the city of Korvosa, to become invested in the place's survival. Sure, I could have just said "this story works best if your characters are invested in saving Korvosa" during character creation (I've done that before, and will likely do so again in a future game). However, this time I wanted to make things more difficult for myself, and see if I could do it more organically, as a storytelling challenge to myself.
I'm going to try two things. First, I created a sub-plot where Lictor Severs DiViri shows up unannounced during the PC's audience with Queen Ileosa (where they're returning her brooch). He'll declare she needs to marry him so his Hellknights can return order to the city. The great thing about his suggestion is that the Lictor really isn't trying to increase his personal power or bed the widowed Queen. He really thinks this is the best plan for restoring law and order to a city on the Edge of Anarchy — and he really can't understand why everyone else isn't supporting his brilliant plan. Hopefully, the PCs will jump to the Queen's defense. After the Lictor leaves (frustrated by the PCs efforts), the Queen sends the PCs to Field Marshal Cressida Kroft, asking them to help her "return order to this great city". This can set up several suspenseful face-downs with Order of the Nail in the city streets; Hellknights who are sure the PCs are agents of chaos because they didn't support the Lictor's plan.
Second, I plan on borrowing that "you mess with one of us, you mess with all of us" scene from the first Tobey Maguire Spider-Man. The PCs are in one of the aforementioned facedowns with the Hellknights, after the PCs have completed a few of Kroft's missions, and the regular city-folk of Korvosa take the PCs side, forcing the Hellknights to back down. Hopefully, the combination of protecting the Queen from the Lictor, the added overarching villains of the Hellknights, and the moment of shared comradery with the Korvosan's all work together to make the PCs feel a sense of ownership… this is their city.
Map C: Ustalav [p17-19]
-----
outside- Corpse (Diplomacy, Intimidate, Survival 20/25; Heal 15/20)
c2- Holy Symbol (Appraise 15/20)
c2- Holy Burst (K.engineering, Survival 15/20)
c8- Vellum (Perception 15/20, in a box; hazard)
{gust of wind can destroy the vellum when the box is opened}
c1- Prayer Scroll (Perception 15/20; hazard & dweomersink)
{the prayer scroll is in the SE top corner}
Tier 3-4:
--------
c13- Skeshnil [p49], dark slayer [p46]
(remove dark slayer)
{the high ceiling gives Skeshnil room to fly. Put the dark slayer in the north kitchens where it can come out stealthed and sneak attack.
If talking w/ PCs have Skeshnil drop a normal stone in bowl of mold after Bluff/Sleight of Hand to trick PCs into thinking it's a gem.}
c14- 3 shadow drakes [p49]
(remove 1 drake)
{the linked threats make perception checks to notice the fight in c13 and show 4 rounds later.}
c10- Army Ant Swarm [p63]
(degenerate: -2 all)
c1- Dweomersink [p73] (hazard)
{covers doorways: out, c2 & c8. Designed to strip buffs cast outside the dungeon. Since the PCs must enter c2 to get both success conditions, it might strip buffs repeatedly.}
c6- Bad Air [p72]
{put candles/incense in shrines to temp players to light them}
Tier 6-7:
--------
c13- Skeshnil [p50], 2 dark callers [p44]
(remove dark callers)
{the high ceiling gives Skeshnil room to fly. Put the dark callers in the north kitchens where they can come out stealthed and sneak attack.}
If talking w/ PCs have Skeshnil drop a normal stone in bowl of mold after Bluff/Sleight of Hand to trick PCs into thinking it's a gem.}
c14- Weakened denizen of Leng [p46] and 2 dark slayers [p46]
(weaken denizen* and remove 1 slayer)
*Remove the Denizen of Leng’s dexterity drain and planar fast healing abilities.
{the linked threats make perception checks to notice the fight in c13 and show 4 rounds later.}
c10- Rot Grub Swarm [p70] & 2 Giant Grubs [p71]
(remove giant grubs)
c10- Rot Grubs [p73]
{separate the hazard, the swarm & the giant grubs in the three rooms}
c1- Dweomersink (CR 9) [p73] (hazard)
{covers doorways: out, c2 & c8. Designed to strip buffs cast outside the dungeon. Since the PCs must enter c2 to get both success conditions, it might strip buffs repeatedly.}
c6 - Bad Air [p72] (candles/incense in shrines)
{put candles/incense in shrines to temp players to light them}
===
<GM Notes: Ran low-tier last night. As noted up-thread, the army ant swarm killed two PCs (including my wife's monk); the 3d6 one round after they fall unconscious is a killer. However, it was their total lack of tactics that killed them, not the monster. I picked the Bad Air and the Dweomersink to be weaponized vs swarms.>
So just out of curiosity (read: masochism), other than
1) acting in the surprise round
2) the staggered condition, and
3) the nauseated condition
what else falls under the "Restricted Activity" guidelines? I can't think of any situations other than those three, but it is COMPLETELY plausible that I'm wrong (It's happened once or twice before...)
PRD Glossary wrote:
Disabled: A character with 0 hit points, or one who has negative hit points but has become stable and conscious, is disabled. A disabled character may take a single move action or standard action each round (but not both, nor can he take full-round actions, but he can still take swift, immediate, and free actions). He moves at half speed. Taking move actions doesn't risk further injury, but performing any standard action (or any other action the GM deems strenuous, including some free actions such as casting a quickened spell) deals 1 point of damage after the completion of the act. Unless the action increased the disabled character's hit points, he is now in negative hit points and dying.
The "restricted activity" find clinched this issue. Now the only thing left is a shouting match and a "quote the same thing 2,000 times and bold my favorite part" fight.
Stop it, guys. You're not discussing rules, you're saying "LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" on the forums.
You're right. It's just like watching a car wreck. I know I should stop replying - I'm just repeating myself. Saying the same thing over and over. Maybe I should just rename my avatar Mojo Jojo.
Nauseated creatures cannot take free actions, by the definition of the condition.
Choosing to interpret several conditions as examples of Restricted Activity does not allow you to change the game effects of those conditions to more closely match the description of Restricted Activity.
Choosing to interpret Nauseated as a subset of Restricted Activity does not allow you to take swift or free actions while Nauseated just because Restricted Activity doesn't prevent them; Nauseated does prevent them.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Highlighting the Bolded parts, Restricted Activity specifies that you can take only 1 standard or 1 move action (as well as any Swift/Immediate and Free Actions as normal). Nauseated specifies that a Nauseated character can only take a single move action per turn. That means no Standard Action, no Swift Action, no Immediate Action, no Free Action, no Full-Round (or attempts to complete one), none of whatever else is listed in the former section. That's 4 (and a half) different action types that the former allows me to complete that the latter doesn't. That's a fairly substantial difference.
And you're going to say they're the same exact things that fall under the same exact paradigms? Sure! While we're at it, let's call Magic Missile and Fireball the same spell, because they're both from the Evocation school, right?
Everyone who keeps repeating this argument is 100% correct. That is a perfectly grammatically correct way to read those two sections you quoted. I'm not entirely sure why people keep repeating it ad nauseam. We really do understand your point.
But English isn't the type of language where words and sentences have just one correct interpretation. Since subway rat was the one who reminded me of that fact about a hundred posts earlier in this thread, I'll let him repeat it here:
subway rat wrote:
You can absolutely take free and swift actions when nauseated!
It's right here in the core rule book.
Page 182 CRB wrote:
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:
CRB wrote:
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.
So now we have two equally valid, grammatically correct readings of the rules.
_
And going back to the very first post of this thread, I once also thought that, by RAW (which is the only type of rules at the PFS table) the "only" in Nauseated meant no free/swift, but upon further research, was confused by the hidden paradoxes this created. The first post was asking for help clarifying why the paradoxes were being created by that rules interpretation; subway rat has provided a RAW-valid alternative that resolves the problems created by my initial understanding of the rules.
Despite subway rat's point being grammatically correct, it doesn't invalidate the other reading. I'm still waiting on Paizo to come down with an official ruling - here in the thread, in the FAQ, in an Errata, etc. When they do make a ruling, as a PFS GM, I'm more than happy to abide by what they say, even if it reintroduces the crazy paradoxes.
In the meantime, my local PFS groups have decided the RAW interpretation that created no crazy paradoxes is the one we'll use. You're free to use your interpretation at your table. I'm sure my PFS group will eventually run across a GM who feels the way you do, and we'll use your interpretation when they're sitting behind the screen.
Then, after the scenario's over and we all have our scenario sheets, we'll take the GM out behind the role-playing store, Nauseate them (probably with corny jokes, but we may have to whip out the 4chan - some of them have good Fort saves), and go through their pockets looking for loose grammar.
They're not different things. Nauseated is a type of Restricted Activity. (Probably.)
And when that type of Restricted Activity adds clauses that are different from the otherwise stated subject matter, it becomes its own specific level of restriction, and then, as I stated previously, supersedes the language present in the Restricted Activity paragraph.
After all, if Restricted Activity is the general term, and Nauseated is a specific condition that would fall under the general term, the wording of the specific condition trumps the general term. Or to further simplify the rule: Specific Trumps General.
I would like to point out that The Staggered condition has the same repercussions as the Restricted Activity entry, and also falls under the general term.
PRD:
Glossary wrote:
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.
Glossary wrote:
Staggered: 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. A creature with nonlethal damage exactly equal to its current hit points gains the staggered condition.
Combat wrote:
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).
The question comes down to why the Staggered condition contains the line "A staggered creature can still take free, swift and immediate actions" but the Nauseated condition does not (or a similar line specifically preventing free/swift/immediate actions). Were they intentionally writing the Nauseated condition to be a more restrictive version of a Restricted Activity and prevent free/swift actions? Or is it just an editing oversight, and the "single move actions" part of Nauseated is pointing back to the (unparenthesized) part of Restricted Activities? Without further clarification from Paizo staff, BOTH interpretations are EQUALLY valid.
I've already posted above why a condition that allows move actions but prevents free actions is self-contradictory. I've noted above the paradox of personal-only swift actions specifically designed to remove a condition that prevents taking swift actions. I've commented above that it's impossible to cease concentrating on a spell if free actions are disallowed. I really don't need to go over all that again.
But I thought that this Combat page and this Conditions page from a v3.5 d20 SRD website was interesting background material. The combat actions section and the Nauseated entry are nearly identical to the PRD, but you can see places where they were slightly edited (adding swift actions to Restricted Activities, etc.). But the Staggered condition has the line in question added between the SRD & the PRD. Obviously, someone had this same argument about the Staggered condition in v3.5 (i.e. can a Paladin Lay-on-Hands himself when Staggered? Can a Barbarian Rage while Staggered?). And when Paizo published Pathfinder, they clarified Staggered.
_
It doesn't really resolve the disagreement. The v3.5 SRD could be interpreted as proof that Nauseated is intended to prevent free/swift actions (since Staggered was modified and Nauseated wasn't) or it could be interpreted as proof that the editors forgot to update Nauseated (since Staggered was modified and Nauseated wasn't). Catch-22.
As I said, my group has discussed this ad nauseam, and we decided that while both interpretations are valid until Paizo chooses to make a ruling one way or the other, the interpretation that Nauseated allows free/swift actions is unburdened by the crazy contradictions and paradoxes that the other interpretation creates.
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.
Combat wrote:
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).
As per the posts above, for the last few months my local PFS tables have been interpreting Nauseated as being a type of Restricted Action because the wording of the bold highlighted parts match so well. Thus, as per the italicized part, we've been allowing free & swift actions with move actions when Nauseated. We haven't run into any unexpected issues.
In that situation I think the Shelynite would call him The Brother of Our Beloved Lady. True, and not something the Kuthite can take offense to.
Probably off-topic, but if the Shelynite insults the Kuthite with a cutting remark, would that count as worship of Zon-Kuthon? And if it does, would the Kuthite still consider it an insult? And if the Kuthite enjoys the fact that the insult was worship of Zon-Kuthon, does it still count? And if …
Although Pathfinder is at booth C101, PAX hasn't labeled anything. I rolled poorly on my Survival check to avoid getting lost, I was Fatigued by the time I found them.
Pathfinder is in the main Expo hall: the giant room in the middle of the building with the 20-foot-high Halo screens in it. Not one of the smaller meeting rooms scattered around the perimeter of the Expo hall (for example: there's a meeting room 101, not in there).
On the con map Pathfinder is in the orange "Tabletop" section of the Expo hall. You can download the PAX Mobile App by scanning the barcode on your con pass or visiting the App Store; there's a copy of the map in that App.
IRL Pathfinder is in the green "C" section of the Expo hall - the Southeast corner of the Expo hall. The tables are right next to the wall, just under the giant green male bathroom sign. It's the end of the Expo hall opposite all the giant video game booths.
Holy Hera. How do you keep it interesting? What are they possibly facing at that level that's still a challenge?
It can be a challenge.
But even dozens of the gods of Golarion had to band together to defeat Rovagug. Specifically, the NG Sarenrae had to offer an alliance to the LE Asmodeus, who had treacherously killed her mentor Ihys in front of her! Then Asmodeus had to put the prison together while the other gods fought to keep the Rough Beast from munching on pieces of reality.
Tell me there isn't a story worth telling hiding in that paragraph. Peter Jackson could probably turn it into a three-hour movie...
If you're interested in some of the fluf surrounding the Starstone Cathedral, you might enjoy The Wounded Wisp, the newest replayable PFS Scenario. I played it a week ago and then ran it yesterday. Climax takes place during an aspirant's attempt to take the Test of the Starstone.
So obviously, depending on your group's personal preferences, your Golarion has everything from the typical ren-faire turkey legs and mead to Coca-Cola and Twinkies.
But what types of food could we reasonably expect to find in what parts of Golarion? Smell is a powerful memory key, and describing the unique smells PCs detect (other than manure) when traveling the planes can help set the mood.
Some likely probabilities to get us started:
Most of the Crown of the World probably serves burnt meat on a skewer.
Sushi's probably popular in Tian-Xia.
Hummus in Casmaron.
Lembas bread in Kyonin.
Tea and crumpets in Taldor.
Snails in Galt.
BBQ in Bloodcove.
Ortolan bunting in Cheliax (hopefully, none of your players actually have these memories).
But where would I get tacos, pizza and the eponymous cheeseburger? I mean, if they're offered anywhere on Golarion I can probably also get them in Absalom (and other major cities, but as a Pathfinder Agent, I'm biased). But what cultures would spawn them? The 4th Earl of Sandwich wasn't even born until 1718 A.D.; are we even allowed to say "the greatest thing since sliced bread" yet? Earth mythology credits his gambling habit as the impetus behind it; what country is infamous for their gambling? Maize is sorta required for Mesoamerican cuisine; anywhere on Golarion famous for growing it? Can you even have pizza without deep-dish Chicago-style vs. New York-style thin-crust (Magnimar & Korvosa)?
(Probably) unrelated to Pathfinder Foods. And the Internet claims those ren-faire "turkey" legs are really emu.
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.
Well, fortunately GM's are allowed to decide what people can and can't do, so when common sense screams, you can listen, even as a PFS GM.
As a devil's advocate example: Nauseated doesn't specify you can take not-an-actions, like breathing; move actions only. After all Hold Person specifies you can breathe, so if Nauseated says "only move actions" then a Nauseated character can't breathe, right? Or make saving throws? Because those aren't move actions.
But that's ridiculous, and no GM (PFS or otherwise) should ever follow RAW to that degree, even if a strict wish-granting-genie parsing of the sentence might seem to imply that. Unless you're NPCing a genie. Then it's okay.
Maybe RAI Nauseated was intended to be like Staggered but with no standard actions? The Personal-target spells and swift class abilities would seem to imply that, and it would make more sense than the way RAW Nauseated is written. And in a home game I'd just house-rule the problem away - but for PFS the process of using a house-rule (aka FAQ/Errata) is a bit more formal.
So thats it. That's what you can do, because you are Nausiated. No swifts, free, standard or full round actions, or anything that requires attention...it's in the description of the condition
And I agreed with you when the GM made the ruling.
-
But assuming Nauseated disallows free actions creates a paradox where you both have to stop concentrating on a spell and can't take the free action to stop concentrating on a spell. Resolving this absurd paradox at a PFS table as a GM is easy, but it requires the GM to say "well, even though Nauseated says you can't use a free action, I'm going to rule you have to take this free action." The common sense the PFS leadership wants us to use when playing makes resolving this rules ambiguity easy.
But the mere existence of the paradox begs the question, are there other free actions that common sense dictates should be allowed while Nauseated? And a simple comparison of the Actions in Combat table shows there are lots of free actions that are simpler versions of move actions - like falling prone vs standing from prone. It's contrary to common sense to rule that someones who's "sick at both ends" can't fall down unless someone else knocks them over, but can easily stand up without help.
Unfortunately, if I assume Nauseated didn't intend to eliminate free actions like falling prone, then it brings the question of swift actions into play. The same logic indicated by a literal reading of the Nauseated condition that eliminated free actions also eliminates swift actions; and if I allow one... Well, I don't like using the slippery slope logical fallacy, but in this case it may apply. And this is complicated by the other Nauseated inconsistencies, like a Personal-target spell or swift class ability that removed Nauseated. Why invent them if you can't use them?
Which makes me curious: am I reading the rule correctly? Or has an unintentional ambiguity in the wording created an unexpected effect? PFS advises I ask here.
You may not simply ignore rules clarifications made
by the campaign leadership, including the campaign
coordinator and campaign developer, on the paizo.
com messageboards. GMs are not required to read every
post on the messageboards, but GMs familiar with rules
clarifications made by the campaign leadership (which
have not been superseded by the Guide to Pathfinder Society
Organized Play or FAQ) must abide by these clarifications
or rulings. If it is a significant clarification, it will be
updated in the FAQ, and later in the Guide to Pathfinder
Society Organized Play if necessary.
So these forums are an authority source for PFSOP. I'm just looking for one of those "campaign leadership, including the campaign coordinator and campaign developer" people's opinions. If I'm in the wrong part of the messageboards, let me know and I'll be happy to repost there.
50 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ.
4 people marked this as a favorite.
Reference:
Spoiler:
- PRD 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.
- PRD Staggered 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. A creature with nonlethal damage exactly equal to its current hit points gains the staggered condition.
The leadership of this organized play community assumes that you will use common sense in your interpretation of the rules.
Some other paizo.com threads discussing this here, here, here and here.
-
So we had this discussion last week at a PFS organized play table (so we can't use a house rule to resolve this). The GM used a Suggestion spell to send the Rogue off to "buy a healing potion" to save our unconscious Inquisitor. I was a Nauseated Oracle (thus the bleeding Inquisitor), but we had looted a Potion of Cure Light Wounds earlier, and my action was between the NPC's casting of Suggestion (and the Rogue's failed will save) and the Rogue's action. So I had the bright idea of "selling" my potion to the Rogue. And I told the Rogue so.
And the GM ruled that since Nauseated says "single move actions per turn" and Staggered says "can still take free, swift and immediate actions" my Nauseated Oracle couldn't talk - a Free Action.
So I'm a Rules Lawyer by nature, but that irritates most people, so I acquiesced to his ruling and the party's Wizard eventually managed to finish off the NPC (by stabbing him in the back when he ran away). And honestly, although I didn't like that my kewl idea had been nixed by the GM's call, at the time my reading of Nauseated made me think he was making the right call. And that's the GM's thankless job, arbitrating rules on the fly when your idiot players try something shady (and occasionally getting the by-the-seat-of-your-pants ruling wrong).
But later on I started thinking - so while Nauseated I can pick up my weapon off the ground (move) but I can't drop it (free)? I can draw a bolt from a quiver and load it into the crossbow (move) but I can't drop it (free)? I can sheathe a Greatsword (move) but I can't draw a dagger from a spring-loaded wrist sheath (swift)? I can stand up from prone (move) but I can't drop prone and a Rogue couldn't use their Stand Up rogue talent (free)?
Or here's a really weird one - if Nauseated I can't "concentrate on spells" but if Nauseated prevents free actions, "Cease concentration on a spell" is a free action. But apparently I can still "Direct or redirect an active spell" (move).
So being a good (bad?) Rules Lawyer I went to the forums to see if there was clarification, and found a bunch more contradictions where Personal target spells that remove Nauseated can't actually be cast while Nauseated or swift action Class abilities that cure Nauseated can't be used while Nauseated.
So Paizo assumes we all "use common sense in your interpretation of the rules" and the forums repeatedly suggest that "specific overrides general" when two rules seem to contradict (although I couldn't find that quote in any Paizo publication).
I think it's obvious that common sense indicates we should be allowed free actions when Nauseated, even though a RAW reading of Nauseated might seem to contradict it.
And I know the 3.0/3.5 rules of "the world’s most popular roleplaying game" where you trade down actions didn't roll over to Pathfinder - but the spring-loaded wrist sheath seems to imply that a swift action is faster and simpler than a move action - especially in comparison to the cheaper plain wrist sheath (see AdventurersArmory).
So if it was a home game, I'd house rule that the game's designers seem to have intended swift actions to be used to cure the Nauseated condition - either by a swift class ability or via a quickened spell.
-
Since this is a PFSOP table, what I really need is a ruling by a Paizo game designer. But in the meantime does anyone else have any thought? Is my logic flawed? Did I miss a line in the CRB that clarifies this?
