I am not sure there is actually any true Can't act, except for Stunned (duration).
As mentioned earlier, petrification comes to mind. And what about unconscious?
Search Posts
Wait, I was looking around and found what appears to be a contradiction about being unable to act. as per "gaining and loosing actions", on pg 462 of the handbook, last sentence.. "The most restrictive form of reducing actions is when an effect states that you can’t act: this means you can’t use any actions, or even speak. When you can’t act, you don’t regain your actions and reaction on your turn." But under the quickened condition, pg 622, of the same book, there is a sidebar "gaining and loosing actions" that mentions more rules are on pg 462 but ends with this.. "Other conditions simply say you can’t act. When you can’t act, you’re unable to take any actions at all. Unlike slowed or stunned, these don’t change the number of actions you regain; they just prevent you from using them. That means if you are somehow cured of paralysis on your turn, you can act immediately." One of my friends said it says paralyzed there so that's the only exception. I said it was but an example and besides, paralyzed says you can still do purely mental action so it's different anyway. My focus was that both of these rules seem to categorically state when someone is under an effect that states they "can't act", obey the following rules. It would appear to me that the Summoner rules were written with the rule from pg 622 in mind, not 462. Which is why it categorically states when one of you is restricted in how you may spend your actions, the other is not as in the example of immobilization or petrifaction. Then why it goes on in the meld into eidolon feat to state what actions cannot be taken, despite starting off with saying the summoner "can't act". I tried to point this out, saying I just wanted consistency, and got told for the love of god drop it. End of discussion. I guess this is just for me now, whatever. So which is it? Gotta say, I'm a little tired of something stating "for example" then being told that's the one and only time it applies. That's not what 'example' means.
Well, thanks for your clear answers everyone! Pondering over what you said, while I wouldn't exactly say I was mistaken (because I was reading the rules plainly written in summoner and mentally filling in any gaps by extrapolating from that) I needed to also remember the rule that says being unable to act means you get no actions back. Getting no actions back means your duo does nothing. They still think it's silly that the summoner can be hindered by up to slow 3 as the eidolon battles against slow, then when the effect expires, is fine while their eidolon is a statue, but whatever. Being grabbed or in a net is very different from being a statue in stasis... But the book specifically calls out that example. Game mechanics sometimes make head scratchers for balance/ease/utility purposes and that's fine. They also decided that having to spend 6 actions in the middle of combat, potentially while slowed, to unmanifest and remanifest something tied to your hp and actions in combat is already punishment enough to not go any further into the argument about does the effect persist, etc. RAW I think you can't even do something costing 3 actions while you are limited to 2 or 1, but my group would let a summoner in this situation sit there over multiple rounds, doing nothing but concentrating on unmanifesting then manifesting as ongoing tasks, maybe asking for something akin to a concentration check if either is disrupted. Everyone agreed that meld into eidolon was a clear exception to that rule because it's obvious intent was to remove the summoner from play and allow the eidolon to continue, or another way to say it, the summoner becomes the eidolon. It would be a useless ability otherwise, as the eidolon wouldn't get any actions, and they wouldn't need to go into great lengths to discuss what the summoner still could or couldn't do. Since it isn't explicitly stated anywhere, it would be a GM call to say an eidolon gets it's own actions in those situations and would allow for potentially gamebreaking things to happen, like the eidolon crafting/researching/earning income as the summoner slept. If that's how someone chooses to run things that's fine. Maybe having the eidolon keep watch while the summoner sleeps is actually fine because speaking is a free action and simple perception to notice those creeping up on the group is also reactionary/free.
Hi! My group and I were discussing summoner and eidolon mechanics, not disrupting any game being played, and seem to have hit a couple snags. Call it confirmation bias but no matter what I say, they seem convinced that the book claims the only thing in the summoner + eidolon union that actually gets actions is the summoner. Which may then be used by either the summoner or eidolon. They seem to strongly believe that if the summoner ever has a condition rendering it unable to act, (the meld into eidolon feat excluded, as a specific exception) that means the summoner does not regain actions nor reactions at the start of their turn therefore the eidolon cannot use the summoner's actions. I've not been able to find anywhere a rule stating that an eidolon gets it's own actions or anything to properly back up my arguement, because they want to treat every instance of "you" and "your" as being written for the summoner only. They disregard the first sentence of the paragraph discussing what to do when one of the pair is restricted and the other is not, saying the example given says if only the eidolon is petrified because "it isn't the source of the union's actions anyway, the summoner is". They also argue that petrified effectively kills the character as they are referred to as haven been alive, which a statue is not, and a dead character has no life force to maintain any link to a manifested eidolon so it should unmanifest. I said their mind and body are stated to be in stasis, and they are therefore not dead, and they turned it back around and said all the more reason to prove why, if one of the union being slowed or stunned removes actions from the other, that one of them being petrified should make it so both of them become petrified or whoever isn't permanently cannot regain actions. Where does it actually state (besides the exception in the meld into eidolon feat) an eidolon can be going around doing things while their summoner cannot act (asleep, petrified, etc)? Where does it state that an eidolon gets it's own actions and may spend them as it wants, if the summoner isn't able to regain actions? Sorry to ask in circles like this but it's frustrating and I'm flabbergasted. |