Damiel

beowulf99's page

250 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 250 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Kios wrote:

I know I've already weighed in on this, but I'd also like to point out that in the Druid anathema section, it states "Each druidic order also has additional anathema acts, detailed in the order’s entry."

My reading of this is that each order has all the listed anathema for Druids and additional ones, because otherwise it should say that each order has it's own anathema acts rather than say they have additional ones. "Additional" anathema would require the order to already have anathema to add to.

I understand that some people may interpret this a different way, but by the rules I've laid out so far it would take quite a bit of stretching of the rules to enable you to learn these abilities without becoming a Druid. A GM could allow it to happen, but I would not consider it RAW.

I also feel strongly that if you multiclass, you are becoming a member of both classes. You just don't have the abilities of someone that trained in that class for a longer amount of time as their main focus.

One thing I don't understand is why this is so limiting to people. There are other materials to make weapons and armor out of and if you are going to modify rules, it seems much easier to reskin existing armor than to erase core class concepts.

I will say that as a general rule I dont read "additional" as going both ways.

If you order a steak at a restaurant and it comes with an additional side of potatoes, do you assume that a potato comes with a steak?

Edit* To clarify, the archetype doesnt refer to the order anathema as additional, only saying that you must abide by that orders anathema. This is a case where I believe they are saying order the potatoes. If the archetype referred to the order anathema as additional, I would agree with you.


There is certainly merit to both points of view. Probably best dealt as a case by case sort of deal.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I would also like to add that using the Champion dedication is not a great argument. Champion specifically states that you use the Deity of your choice's anathemas as well as your Order's tenants. There it is specifically saying that you get those anathema.

Druid does not say in specific terms that you gain standard Druid anathema, only order based anathema.


Also: Stunned does nothing to reduce a creatures AC. So good luck hitting a creature 10 levels above you reliably, even if it can't act.


SuperBidi wrote:
beowulf99 wrote:
Superbidi... Power Word Stun is an 8th level spell. Are you telling me that you believe that an 8th level spell slot to Paizo is only worth making a creature of your own level Stunned 1?

You realize that with your interpretation you can stunlock any creature. As soon as you hit level 15, you can perfect a Grim Reaper (but not Treerazer, he's immune to mental, but I expect soon to see other level 25+ monsters who're not mental immune so you can have fun killing creature 10 levels above yours).

So, yeah, clearly, there's an issue somewhere. And I don't think it's an issue with Power Word Stun.

Stunlock any creature with what ability? If you are going to make that claim, spell it out. Don't make me guess. That's rude.

*Edit: Do you mean with Power Word Stun? How would they be locked? How long could you keep them locked? Could you kill them during that lock?

Also no stun locking: You stun the target with an arcane word of power. Once
targeted, the target is then temporarily immune for 10
minutes. The effect of the spell depends on the target’s level.


SuperBidi wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
Superbidi wrote:
So, as a DM, I would just count the remaining actions as actions reducing the Stunned condition.
Obviously Paizo thought of this and the decided not to do this. Do you know why?
Ok, so, your premise is that Paizo thought of this.

If by "this" you are referring to the mechanic if having Slowed/Stunned take effect immediately and having any remaining actions be used by it, then yes. It's unequivocally true because Paizo specifically tells us to wait to the start of the victim's turn because otherwise you'd do exactly what you're house ruling.

Quote:
Beowulf's interpretation means that you can stun for a whole round. RAI, such an effect would be protected. Either by the Incapacitation trait or by the need for a Critical Failure.

I don't know where you're coming up with that rationale, so you'll have to explain why that argument holds any validity.

Quote:
So, it's very easy to disprove Beowulf's interpretation: If we can find a way to stun for one action that is not protected by the Incapacitation trait (or the need for a critical failure), then he's wrong.

I don't actually agree that this proves what you think it proves, so once again, I'll ask you to walk me through it, but since you asked...

Under feats...Roll with it.

Under equipment...Dazing Coil

Under spells...Power Word Stun

Under monsters...Subsonic Hum

This list is not exhaustive and I as I read them, they all can provide a Stunned 1 without reference to the Incapacitate trait/effect or the need for a critical failure.

As stated, I don't follow your logic here, so I am not seeing how this resolves anything, but would welcome an explanation.

I didn't understand that you were speaking to...

Superbidi... Power Word Stun is an 8th level spell. Are you telling me that you believe that an 8th level spell slot to Paizo is only worth making a creature of your own level Stunned 1? Using N N 959's interpretation that means they can only ever lose 1 action from it, with no change to the use of reactions.

Dazing Coil is a Talisman designed for a rogue, can only stun 1 and can only apply to creatures that are flat footed for you. Oh, and as a 14th level item DC 31 isn't exactly an "Unbeatable" DC.

Roll with it applies stunned to you as a trade for taking minimum damage on any attack you choose to activate the feat for.

Carnivorous Crystal is a creature. There are plenty of examples of creatures having abilities designed to put pressure on PC's. Grabbed for example allows them to do something that PC's can't do without feats, Grab without a roll.

Doesn't feel very imbalanced to me. In fact Power Word Stun kind of sucks using N N 959's interpretation, especially for an 8th level spell slot.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Shields are a terrible waste of design space as implemented imho. Instead of "sturdy shields" being specific shields, Sturdy should just be a shield specific rune that can be placed on any shield.

Druids suffer for having limited options for shields at higher levels due to all sturdy shields being steel shields.

There are also a ton of possibilities for shield specific runes that just aren't used unless a new specific magic shield is added.

Honestly shields feel very tacked on as implemented, excepting the shield block mechanic of course. The actual items need some love imho.


I second tivadar27's reasoning.

What you end up with is essentially this:

CRB PG. 470 "Basic Actions/ Leap" wrote:

Leap

Move
You take a careful, short jump. You can Leap up to 10 (15) feet
horizontally if your Speed is at least 15 feet, or up to 15 (20) feet
horizontally if your Speed is at least 30 feet. You land in the
space where your Leap ends (meaning you can typically clear
a 5-foot gap, or a 10-foot gap if your Speed is 30 feet or more).
If you Leap vertically, you can move up to 3 (5) feet vertically
and 5 (10) feet horizontally onto an elevated surface.
Jumping a greater distance requires using the Athletics skill.

Adjusted numbers in parenthesis. This is actually a pretty good feat all things considered. No skill check reasonable distance jumps are awesome in the right circumstances.


For the record, I never post with the intention of belittling another person, or arguing with them for the sake of argument. I truly do believe that my interpretation is the most correct that has been posited.

I am fully willing to admit I am wrong, so long as a good enough argument has been made to that effect.

To illustrate this, earlier I had stated that I believed Haste being cast on you would cause you to "gain" an action mid turn, thus triggering Stunned. After a re-read of the rules, specifically the Quickened condition, I have realized that Quickened does not trigger until the beginning of the quickened characters turn and thus was incorrect in that statement. This was not a property of quickened that I was aware of honestly, and is likely something that I have already goofed on at the table.

Overall this discussion has improved my game mastery considerably, especially where conditions are concerned.


Qaianna wrote:

Sorry, guys. Page 286 of the handbook.

'A shield bash is not actually a weapon, but a maneuver in which you thrust or swing your shield to hit your foe with an impromptu attack.'

Get a shield boss and you're fine. If you don't want to spend five lousy silver pieces to get one then you have no business trying to make it a weapon anyway.

Sure. And when you make an attack with that shield bash, it counts as a martial weapon. So if you are proficient with all martial weapons, you are proficient in that attack.

This is intended, so there is no question as to whether a character trained in the defensive use of shields isn't necessarily trained in attacking with them, ala the Druid.

At least that is my interpretation.


A basic shield (no boss or spikes) is considered a Martial weapon, so it uses your martial weapon proficiency if applicable.

If you are not trained with all martial weapons or a shield specifically, you are untrained for shield bash attacks.


Kios wrote:

Well, if you somehow were taught druidic as a non-druid both you and the druid that taught you would be kicked out of the order and would not have access to druid spellcasting or any benefits of their order. So even if you were somehow a non-druid druid the guy that just taught you the language loses their ability to teach you anything else.

You gain the benefits of the archetype by learning Druidic and becoming a member of an order, which is something only a Druid can do (for the reason above), which is why the archetype specifically says "You become a member of that order"

What says you can't use metal is that "If you perform enough acts that are anathema to nature, you lose your magical abilities that come from the druid class, including your primal spellcasting and the benefits of your order." - this says anathema to nature, not to the Druid class specifically, though it does say:

The following acts are anathema to all druids:

Using metal armor or shields.
Despoiling natural places.
Teaching the Druidic language to non-druids.

Note it says all druids, which MC druids are because that's what multiclassing is. Also because that's what "You have entered a druidic circle" means.

I tend to agree with you from a lore perspective, but from a rules and gameplay perspective, I dont believe it is that cut and dry.

Why couldn't there be a Knight Errant of the forest out there, using metal to defend the trees and primal magic to save its denizens?

That is not a valid character if you apply the rule in the way that you describe.

Side note, I'm sure I am not the only one who thinks that the not spreading the druidic language thing is weird right? The word primal magic tells me that it is a magic user that doesnt observe the rules of society. So why apply a rule to spellcasting for primal casters that is obviously based on a societies rules? It's not like druids are flavored like clerics where they have a specific and capricious deity to appease.

That anathema has always bothered me.


N N 959 wrote:
beowulf99 wrote:


Sure, then you can refer to page 462,..

That is the first section I read and quoted in my first response, so I've ready it multiple times. It doesn't help your argument.

Quote:
It is my belief that the sidebar on page 622 is essentially old.

So here again, you're grasping at straws. This type fo statement really exposes a lack of objectivity. You've got nothing on which to make this assertion other than it provides you a way to dismiss rules that contradict your position. My interpretation doesn't require that I invalidate any section of the rules by virtue of age.

Quote:
So the key issue is whether the phrase, "you can't act," actually means you can't act or not.

That isn't the "key" issue. The issue is "when" are you Stunned. When does the condition impose itself. There is no disagreement about what it means when it say, "You can't act." The disagreement is about when that applies.

Quote:
2. You can finish your turn and can apparently still use reactions until your next turn when you suddenly are actually stunned.

Yes. And this is exactly what happens with Slowed and Quickened. They have no effect on you until the start of your next turn when "suddenly" they are applied. You haven't provided any reason why it can't work the way it's written, especially in the face of the other related Conditions working in that way.

It's a game. The rules can work anyway the writers want them to. Obviously they want Conditions that don't apply mid-turn. I read Stunned as one of them.

Flippity floppity, they also want conditions that apply mid-turn. Stunned is just special in that it afflicts both. And here we go around the merry go round.

So if you become stunned, why specifically would you not immediately suffer it's effects? Despite what you claim over and over again the sidebar does not specifically say that Stunned waits until your turn to apply "you can't act". What it does say is that the second part of stunned, losing regained actions, applies when you regain actions.

Could it be that like several other conditions Stunned could have multiple individual effects? And that those effects could have different timing? Unconscious inflicts an inability to act, flat footed and additional penalties to various checks on top of not being able to use your senses. That's a lot of effects. Why can't Stunned have 2 different effects?

Why can't Stunned immediately apply "you can't act" and then "reduce regained actions" on your turn?

You keep talking about Slowed. Slowed specifically states that it doesn't take effect until your turn in the condition and in the sidebar. Stunned only makes that distinction for the actual "loss" of actions it applies. Stunned does not state that you apply "you can't act," once the second part of stunned takes effect. You are adding that.

And that loss can trigger you losing Stunned. Which is why I believe stunned applies from the moment you gain the condition to the moment that you end it by "losing" enough actions to it, in the way that the condition specifically states you lose actions to it.

It can do both.


N N 959 wrote:
BellyBeard wrote:
If you are stunned 1 and lose 2 actions on your turn plus one next turn, that's 3 actions lost, so that would contradict this sentence. Losing actions and being unable to use actions are one and the same, at least as I see it.

This is one of the hurdles that crops up with mid-turn application. And while it's certainly possible to create a Condition that works this way, I would require Paizo have clearly indicated this is what should happen, instead of the opposite of that which is what the sidebar does.

That all depends on your definition of "lost action". I agree that for all intents and purposes an action you can't use is essentially lost. But it is definitely possible, and to me likely, that there is a distinction made in the conditions rules between lost actions and unusable actions. Stunned is just special in that it does both.

I would agree that the wording in the sidebar needs a bit of clarification. But for me, there is more than enough evidence to support my position. Nothing about the sidebar's wording changes that in my mind.

You can't act still means you can't act.

"Each time you regain actions (such as at the start of your turn), reduce the number you regain by your stunned value," cannot happen during your turn. So it is obvious to me that stunned inflicts both penalties.

And that is ok. Stunned isn't exactly around every corner in the game. I'm not sure my group has ever been in a position where it was even on the table either in the groups hands or a monster.

The generally limited amount of stun that effects give also supports this line of thinking.

But now I'm just rambling over things I've already said, and still believe.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Really the balance of the game has changed around the fighter. While you can't charge the giant in your example to deal 200 damage necessarily, you can do an equivalent job if that is your focus as a fighter.

The fighter is the class of martial versatility from my reading. Like 1e they can be built to be a tank, a melee striker or a high AC defender.

At least that's my $.02. I haven't played a fighter in 2e or had a player in a game play one so your mileage may vary.


N N 959 wrote:

If you get Stunned as part of a Reaction, you finish your turn normally. Then, at the "start of your turn" i.e. your next turn, you lose the actions based on the number. If it's a duration, then you're Stunned for the duration which starts on your turn..

While you are Stunned, you can't act.

Beo wrote:
And to address the Op's question, if you become stunned, can you use reactions?*** Because... why exactly?
Sidebar wrote:
When you can’t act, you’re unable to take any actions at all.

The things that give me pause, I've already mentioned:

1. Slowed and Quickened definitions include a clause that is missing for Stunned. This leaves the door open for an interpretation that allows a GM to impose Stunned mid-cycle (but that still violates the sidebar and creates the problem with Stunned 1 having a variable impact)

2. It's natural to think that you've been Stunned and it takes effect immediately. Paizo does seem to go out of its way to create this "Gaining and Losing Abilities" of which Stunned is included, but because of #1, there's a feeling of ambiguity.

3. As a whole, the writing takes a lot of connecting the dots. But admittedly it does this with Stealth and pre-init triggers and actions. PF2 seems to require more dot connecting to get the whole picture, despite it's efforts to make the rules generally simple.

Looks, it's possible Paizo got its wires crossed on this one. But from my reading there are a lot of hurdles you need to overcome to convince me I'm supposed to ignore the sidebar and stop someone from taking any more actions mid-turn when it's clear Slowed and Quickened are not suppose to have any effect mid-turn, and Stunned is specifically grouped with them in the section that tells us not to do it.

Sure, then you can refer to page 462, "gaining and losing actions", which is essentially a rewritten form of the sidebar (thanks thenobledrake, I probably would have never found it honestly if you hadn't prompted me to do a quick Nethys search at work) which does not group those 3 conditions together.

A list on Nethys that shows the "groups" of conditions"

It is my belief that the sidebar on page 622 is essentially old. Going back to the Playtest, originally Stunned simply stated that you can't act. There was no reducing actions at all. I believe that they added this mechanic to Stunned to provide an inbuilt timer and reduce the severity of the condition, or just to make the condition more interesting than "you can't act" alone.

And as far as I can find, there was no "Gaining and Losing actions" section in the playtest which indicates that it was added afterwards, or just not included for whatever reason.

This is neither here nor there though.

To parrot an earlier poster, there are 3 ways I've seen to resolve Stunned.

1. You can't act immediately when being stunned, then on your turn you begin losing actions.

2. You can finish your turn and can apparently still use reactions until your next turn when you suddenly are actually stunned.

3. You can't act immediately when being stunned and count any actions you lose during that turn against the number lost to Stunned.

To me 1 and 3 are the most likely, but I still lean heavily towards 1. Stunned itself already tells you when you specifically "lose actions" to it. When you regain actions. Nothing in the sidebar argues with that.

So the key issue is whether the phrase, "you can't act," actually means you can't act or not.

That is for each GM to decide. I have made my opinion abundantly clear.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Laran wrote:

The rules state that

"Each druidic order also has additional anathema acts, detailed in the order’s entry" p130

The order specific anathemas are specifically called out as ADDITIONAL anathema acts, thus every order has the base AND the others

"You become a member of that order and are bound by its anathema..." p225

You are bound by its anathema not just the additional ones

I think the disconnect here is that being a part of that Order is not the same as being an actual member of a Druid order, or actually being a druid.

The only time you gain the basic druid anathema's according to the book is when you are a Druid and you gain the Anathema class "feature".

Think of it as being a member of the more specific order without being a full druid club member. If you choose Animal order, you can't murder animals. If you pick storm, you can't pollute.

Nothing about that says that you can't use metal. The teaching the druidic language I would say is easy to handle in story rather than rule.

At least that is what makes sense to me. It also opens up interesting character concepts, which is always a plus.


N N 959 wrote:

Eventually, you keep trying to hide behind the same rock:

Stopping you from acting in the middle of your turn is not the same as adjusting your actions to zero.

From where I sit, that rock isn't big enough for you to hide behind.

So if I can't hide, shine a light on the matter. How does stunned work then?

Point by point how do you resolve being stunned on your turn?

And to address the Op's question, if you become stunned, can you use reactions? Because Stunned doesn't stipulate specifically that you can't use reactions. But it does say that you can't act. Which should indicate that you couldn't use a reaction, but apparently does not. Because... why exactly?


N N 959 wrote:
beowulf99 wrote:

No, you are missing the forest for the trees.

Ironically, I think this is your condition.

"You can't act" is telling us what happens whiled you are Stunned. Per the sidebar, that doesn't happen until the start of your turn.

If Stunned is meant to take effect immediately, then why even group it with Slowed in the Sidebar? Why not use SuperBidi's house rule?

Superbidi wrote:
So, as a DM, I would just count the remaining actions as actions reducing the Stunned condition.

Obviously Paizo thought of this and the decided not to do this. Do you know why?

Quote:
Wait wait wait. N N 959, you are going to sit there and tell me that there are different ways to implement the phrase "you can't act"?

You're shifting the goal posts every time someone scores a field goal. That post was answering your response about Paralyzing tracking Actions even though it say, "You can't act."

You're repeatedly trying to avoid the sidebar by inventing ways it's not violated or insisting it contradicts other Conditions and trying to associate Stunned with those Conditions. That's fine. It's neither convincing nor compelling for me, but ...so what.

What goal post have I shifted? You haven't provided a shred of credible evidence that Stunned isn't immediate. The sidebar does not say explicitly that Stunned isn't immediate, it doesn't even say that it does not function like any other condition that imposes an inability to act.

You are flat out ignoring the second sentence of Stunned. Ignoring it like it doesn't exist.

edit: This actually makes your earlier sophistry comment more hilarious. Who is being a sophist here?

I have only argued with your interpretation of a sidebar that does not trump a specific rule. You are going out of your way to try to obfuscate my point by claiming that I am shifting goal posts or being a deceitful myself which is the definition of sophistry. I know, I googled it. :)


thenobledrake wrote:
beowulf99 wrote:
I will agree that the page number does seem to be incorrect, but where did this come from then?

the page number is correct. Like I said in my previous post, the text matches exactly to the page that is cited - it comes from page 462.

What it isn't is an updated version of the side-bar which is on page 622 of the book or any kind of contradiction to that side-bar's text.

Huh, well look who was too focused on sidebars to look at the actual content of a page of the book (that would be me for clarity). However, I will point out that both that section on 462 and the sidebar on 622 are essentially the same with a few minimal differences. Differences that could be an artifact left over from a rules change.

But neither writing indicates that "You can't act while stunned" means "go ahead and finish this turn bruh, you good," or that stunned reduces any actions that you already had when you gain the stunned condition.

Because it very specifically does not.

Edit* Reducing actions meaning that you actually "lose" that action. I feel like this is the disconnect that is causing most of the confusion in this thread. "Losing an action" is not the same as being unable to act. Stunned does both. If you somehow have an action while stunned, you can't use it. Then on your turn when you regain actions, you regain less actions, and reduce your stunned condition.
Unless that stunned condition is based on a certain amount of time, in which case stunned operates basically like being unconscious.


Wait wait wait. N N 959, you are going to sit there and tell me that there are different ways to implement the phrase "you can't act"?

No, you are missing the forest for the trees.

As I have stated who knows how many times in this thread, the "actions lost" during stunned are a counter. The actual penalty of being stunned is the fact that at any time you are stunned, you can't act. That is including the turn you gain the condition.

Paralysis and Petrified provide specific ways in which they differ from one another. So does unconscious. So does stunned.

In what way is the "You can't act," in Stunned specifically different from any of the other 3 conditions that impose this?

"You’ve become senseless. You can’t act while stunned."

"You’re sleeping, or you’ve been knocked out. You can’t
act."

"You have been turned to stone. You can’t act, nor can
you sense anything."

"Your body is frozen in place. You have the flat-footed
condition and can’t act except to Recall Knowledge and
use actions that require only the use of your mind (as
determined by the GM)."

The mental gymnastics it takes to think that these do not work similarly to each other are breath taking.

Similar to the what it takes to think that being covered in goo is similar to being stunned.


For the first part of your post so long as any part of the creatures area is on difficult terrain, they suffer the effects of difficult terrain.

Say you have a Huge creature (3x3 5ft squares) who is entering a 2x3 area of difficult terrain. So long as any part of that huge creatures base would be "entering" a square of difficult terrain during a move action, they would suffer the additional move speed penalty. Only once the last square of them would be leaving that area of difficult terrain would they no longer take the penalty.

So far as the Lizardfolk feat goes, so long as even one square of a huge creatures base is in a square of difficult terrain, they would be flat footed to that lizard folk, as them being in difficult terrain is true.

For the off topic bonus questions:
Note: The Champions reaction you get as a part of it would obviously benefit.
Feats in order:
1. No, because SoR is not an attack, so couldn't be done with a bow.
2. No, because you are not moving as part of SoR
3. No, because you are not using Glimpse of Redemption.
4. No, because you are not using Glimpse of Redemption.
5. No, because you are not using Liberating Step.


For those stating that this makes stunned too good to be true, so is likely not the case: Do you know how many effects actually cause stunned? Did you know that the longest duration of stunned that isn't tracked in minutes is 4? From a critical failure no less?

It is still my belief that Stunned is intended to be a more severe version of slowed. Think of it more as limited duration unconsciousness.

To those who state that Stunned must reduce your actions on the turn you gain the condition, I point you to Stunned itself wherein it details the exact time and conditions under which it reduces your actions, specifically. So specifically that you could call it a specific rule that trumps the general rule.

You can run stunned however you want, but I warn you, the way the rule is written works and is apparently intended. This is why stunned is relatively rare, or if it is easily done like in the case of Stunning fist it has other mitigating factors, like the Incapacitate trait.

Advocating for stunned characters to be able to act is actually just replacing all instances of stunned with literally worse slowed.

You know, because slowed almost always has a specific duration instead of "counting down" like stunned does. You know, a differentiating factor that leads me to believe that the two shouldn't be grouped together.

But hey, what do I know. I'm an alleged Sophist.


Take a look then for yourself. I will agree that the page number does seem to be incorrect, but where did this come from then? Especially given how it exactly describes how you gain and lose actions... you know, like the gaining and losing actions sidebar should.

Since Archives of Nethys are the official SRD for Pathfinder 2.0 I would probably trust them to be relatively correct.

And no, that is not the Subordinate actions sidebar, I checked.

Paralysis and Stunned work more similarly than you give them credit for. In fact, the first detriment they each give you is the same. You can't act. It's only the details that are different.

Paralysis stipulates that you can in fact make recall knowledge checks or mental checks etc... and Stunned stipulates that on your turn when you regain actions you reduce the number of actions you gain by your Stunned modifier. You then reduce that stunned modifier by the number of actions you lost. If that modifier reaches 0, you are no longer stunned.

If condition A says you can't act, and condition B says you can't act, how is that different?

So again, to summarize: You become stunned. You cannot act, you cannot make Reactions. This occurs even if it is during your turn.

Your turn order comes around, you reduce actions then reduce your stunned modifier. If the modifier is still greater than 0, you are still stunned and still can't act. Once that modifier goes to 0, you are good to go.


Hmm. Seems they errata'd the Gaining and losing actions side bar. Good thing it is up on Nethys.

CRB PG. 622 "Gaining and Losing Actions-Updated" wrote:

Conditions can change the number of actions you can use on your turn, or whether you can use actions at all. The slowed condition, for example, causes you to lose actions, while the quickened condition causes you to gain them. Conditions are detailed in the appendix on pages 618–623. Whenever you lose a number of actions—whether from these conditions or in any other way—you choose which to lose if there’s any difference between them. For instance, the haste spell makes you quickened, but it limits what you can use your extra action to do. If you lost an action while haste was active, you might want to lose the action from haste first, since it’s more limited than your normal actions.

Some effects are even more restrictive. Certain abilities, instead of or in addition to changing the number of actions you can use, say specifically that you can’t use reactions. 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.

For those in the peanut gallery, note the lack of any mention of stunned. No more "grouping it together" with slowed. Also note the In addition to wording.

So to summarize: Stunned ends your turn provided you gain it during your turn, because you can't act while stunned. Then stunned, as a specific rule, overrides the end of the sidebar, and only reduces the specific actions that it calls out. Specific overrides general.

Check. Mate.


thenobledrake wrote:
Saying that stunned doesn't reduce your actions mid turn, it just stops you from using them because you can't act, is a) in direct and explicit contradiction of the rules text, and b) the definition of a distinction without a difference.

So then how do you propose paralysis works then?


N N 959 wrote:
beowulf99 wrote:


I would agree with you if stunned had the same wording that both quickened and slowed have. But it does not, does it?

It does. The sidebar says that all three of them do not reduce actions in the middle of a turn. As there is nothing that contradicts this, this holds true. Yes, it would be ironclad if it had the same clause in the actual definition, but failing to have that clause doesn't invalidate the sidebar.

Holding that you still have actions but can't use them as not violating the sidebar is simply sophistry. Paizo never uses this rationale with anything else in PF2 and it never used that paradigm with anything in PF1.

Stunned doesnt reduce your actions mid turn, even under my interpretation.

So you are going to tell me, that you think it is fine that 2 conditions, paralysis and petrification, do in fact end your turn mid turn, but stunned which uses the same wording doesn't?

That sidebar clause does not say in any interpretation that stunned does not operate like paralysis and petrification. It states that paralysis and petrification do not reduce actions. That is an important distinction that you are ignoring.

But feel free and rule it the way you want. You're wrong, but it's your table. Do as you will.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I would allow a character to forego following the standard anathema and only adhere to the order specific anathema. This allows for characters that can't get by without metal gear like say a liberator champion/druid character who specializes in freeing animals from captivity.


BellyBeard wrote:
So the monk's turn should normally be move to melee into readying a Flurry of Blows with Stunning Fist for the start of the enemy's turn. If either attack hits and they fail the save they lose their entire turn, and one action the next turn.

Sure. If the monk wants to forego a third and fourth attack, that is a perfectly valid tactic. Granted with stunning blow being an incapacitate effect, against higher level foes it's probably better to go for attacks.


N N 959 wrote:
BellyBeard wrote:
Stunned is instant and is removed after a number of actions wasted and slowed has a duration, so they work quite different.

I guess I do have something more to add...

While I agree that Stunned works quite differently, it's actually not necessarily true that it's "instant." Why do I say this? Because Slowed and Quickened don't work instantly. It's specifically stated that neither work in the same round that they are applied. This tells us that Paizo has contemplated Conditions that don't work immediately. This opens the door for Stunned to work in the same way. Even though the definition doesn't include the same exact language, it is included in the 622 sidebar.

In other words, Stunned takes a moment to take effect and as such it doesn't actually take effect until the start of your turn. Why can we say this?

1. There exist Conditions that imposed during a turn, don't start until the next turn.

2. Stunned is grouped with two other Conditions that specifically work in this way and a rule specifically tells us that Stunned does not reduce actions in the "middle of your turn."

Laran touches upon this above.

Laran wrote:

So the two ways we are interpreting Stun effects that happen in the middle of your turn are:

1) That you are not stunned IMMEDIATELY if you get the condition as part of the opponents reaction. The adrenaline surge of completing the action delays the onset of stun until the next turn (that can happen IRL) or the sequence of events are adjusted so that stuns always occur last in your turn. You complete your turn and then on your next turn you feel the effect of the stun and "shake it off" by losing actions. This is supported by the rules which say you do not lose actions in the middle of your turn and that stun has an explicit action loss value.

Initially I dismissed this because I don't think it has anything to do with "adrenaline," but I do think that Paizo is wanting to simulate effects that kind of kick in.

So one way to...

I would agree with you if stunned had the same wording that both quickened and slowed have. But it does not, does it?

Saying that stunned is grouped together with quickened and slowed is less valid than saying that stunned us grouped with paralysis and petrified. All 3 of those conditions state that you cannot act while you have them. Stunned does not say that it takes effect on your next turn. The next time it stops you from regaining actions is on your next turn, but not the actual effect of stunned: not being able to act.

The aforementioned section where stunned is "grouped" with quickened and slowed only shows that all 3 effect the number of actions you regain on your turn. What it does not say is that stunned does not also act as paralyzed or petrified.

To say otherwise is refusing to read the rule in its entirety.


I would say yes, with the clarification that the Pesh Skin is not inherent to the leshy itself. Even though it is going from plant to plant, it is really going from one type of plant to another type of plant.


BellyBeard wrote:

Stunned is instant and is removed after a number of actions wasted and slowed has a duration, so they work quite different.

Though maybe not RAW, I think the thing that makes the most sense for a mid-turn stun is for it to just remove remaining actions on your turn as if it was the start of the turn. If it removed all your remaining actions and you are still stunned you lose reactions, if it is gone you keep your reactions. I realize the rules do not support this, but to me this makes the most sense, certainly more than a Stun 1 removing a variable amount of actions depending on what time in your turn it hits (I think the "it's not removing actions, you still have the actions but can't use them" argument is a bunch of legalese that would make any player upset if you used it).

Not really when the other conditions that impose "you can't act" work exactly like that, and even have a special case where they are removed that allows you to act immediately after being healed.

That is fine as a house rule, so long as you are aware that it is a house rule. But rules as written and intended as far as I'm concerned, are that being even stunned 1 during your turn is the end of that turn.

It is important to note that the only effect that stuns more than 3 that I found with a cursory search is a crit fail from Stunning Snare. In fact most stunning effects are either stunned 1/2 or stunned for a specific duration, which is usually the case for spells. Your interpretation makes almost all other stunning effects, like stunning blows or most spells, largely less useful in the circumstances wherein they can be used as a reaction.

I will agree that being stunned on your turn is likely not going to be the Average use of stunned. However when it does happen, I do believe it is intended to be as harsh as it is written to be. I.E. at minimum the rest of a turn wasted, and part of your next turn.

I would be interested in seeing a developers opinion. Fat chance before the next round of errata, but stranger things have happened.


That is a good summary of my point of view Laran. I will be the first (or second or third) to state that the rules are not as clear as they should be. They rarely are in my opinion.

Errata is surely needed. However I do not believe that stunned operates like slightly worse slowed. It is meant to be a more harsh condition, and interpreting it any other way I believe is incorrect.


RH wrote:
beowulf99 wrote:
What you are missing is that Stunned isn't ONLY reducing your actions. It is also flat out stating that you cannot use actions you have.

STUNNED (p. 622) states: You’ve become senseless. You can’t act while stunned. Stunned usually includes a value, which indicates how many total actions you lose, possibly over multiple turns, from being stunned. Each time you regain actions (such as at the start of your turn), reduce the number you regain by your stunned value, then reduce your stunned value by the number of actions you lost. For example, if you were stunned 4, you would lose all 3 of your actions on your turn, reducing you to stunned 1; on your next turn, you would lose 1 more action, and then be able to use your remaining 2 actions normally. Stunned might also have a duration instead of a value, such as “stunned for 1 minute.” In this case, you lose all your actions for the listed duration.

Seems clear, you cannot act while stunned, but the DURATION of the stunned condition varies. If you are Stunned 1, then you only lose one action during which time you are indeed stunned and can't act; after you forfeit that action, however, you lose the Stunned condition and have two actions left to use.

This is true. You lose that action when you regain actions, which then drops the stunned condition from you. At that point you are no longer stunned and can act normally. But if you are stunned on your own turn, stunned very specifically does not reduce, because it does not reduce actions you already have.

During that turn, you would not be able to act, no matter how many actions you had left. That is my argument. So far no one has sufficiently convinced me that this is incorrect.


We can go ahead and agree to disagree if you want to. But one last thing to consider:

Any other condition would effect you immediately right? If you get paralyzed in the middle of your turn, you would't argue that you could continue acting for the rest of that turn, right?

If you were enlarged on your turn, you wouldn't argue that you don't take the clumsy condition for that turn, since you didn't have it at the beginning of your turn right?

So why argue that becoming stunned during your turn, say from a snare or some other reaction effect, doesn't do anything to you on your turn?

Slowed specifically states that it doesn't effect you during your turn. Stunned does not.

Cheers.


N N 959 wrote:
beowulf99 wrote:
Dude, you're right it's right there. Stunned does NOT adjust actions in the middle of your turn. It makes it so you cannot Use those actions. You still have them. If you use beads to denote actions, you can hold on to them. But you can't spend them. Or reactions, which stunned actually never takes away, it just prevents you from using them.

Funny. That's like saying, this axe to the chest isn't reducing your hit points to zero, I'm just making it so that you can't use them.

No because damage very specifically reduces hit points. Stunned only reduces actions regained. That is easy to understand.

What you are missing is that Stunned isn't ONLY reducing your actions. It is also flat out stating that you cannot use actions you have.

I've already mentioned that stunned does not reduce reactions. This is true. But you can't use reactions while stunned. So how do you reconcile that?

You have a reaction but can't use it. Why can't you also have an action and not be able to use it?

Paralyzed specifically does not reduce your actions. But it does state, in the same way that stunned does, that you cannot act. Using your logic, You can act just fine while paralyzed because you still have actions.


N N 959 wrote:
beowulf99 wrote:


You still have 2 actions to use, however are now stunned and so, cannot act. So you end your turn unable to act.
And that would require you "adjust" my actions to zero which is counter-indicated by the 622 sidebar.

No it wouldn't. It would only require me as a gm to say that you cannot use an action that you have while stunned. No adjustment of actions needed, or called for.

It's not hard man. Not at all.


N N 959 wrote:
beowulf99 wrote:
Again, you are ignoring the "you can't act while stunned" bit of Stunned.

No, I'm not. I specifically dealt with that. Specific trumps general. There a several conditions which say you can't act. The sidebar tells us that Stunned is a one of three conditions that do not adjust actions "in the middle of your turn." That creates an exception that applies specifically to Stunned, Slowed, and Quickened.

Dude...it's right there.

Dude, you're right it's right there. Stunned does NOT adjust actions in the middle of your turn. It makes it so you cannot Use those actions. You still have them. If you use beads to denote actions, you can hold on to them. But you can't spend them. Or reactions, which stunned actually never takes away, it just prevents you from using them.


Example of Stunned during your turn:

You begin your turn and move. You move into a square with a Stunning Snare in it. You critically fail your save. You are immediately Stunned 4. If you would be qualified to use a reaction or free action, you cannot because you are stunned.

You still have 2 actions to use, however are now stunned and so, cannot act. So you end your turn unable to act.

Next round: You begin your turn. You go to regain actions. Stunned reduces your regained actions by it's value, so 4. Since you only gain 3 actions, this leaves you stunned 1. If you would qualify to use a reaction or free action you cannot because you are stunned. You end your turn.

Next round: You begin your turn. You go to regain actions. Stunned reduces your regained actions by up to it's value, so 1. You are no longer stunned and have 2 actions to use. You can now use free actions and reactions.

This is the way I believe Stunned is intended to work step by step.


N N 959 wrote:


Quote:
Ruling either that you immediately lose actions from stunned or that you can use any actions while stunned EVER are both directly contradictory to the rules. Specifically the "you can't act while stunned" rule, which in this case would be the specific rule that would override the sidebar anyway.
The side bar on 622 explicitly states that stunned is a condition in which you do not adjust actions in the middle of your turn. It's right there in black and white...or white and black if your using the Archve.

Again, you are ignoring the "you can't act while stunned" bit of Stunned. There is a difference between losing actions and not being able to use those actions. Stunned does both. In some cases you can be stunned in the middle of a turn. In these cases it is my belief that the "you can't act while stunned" applies, and while you do not lose these actions, you cannot use them.

Also note, this does make it so that you can never use reactions or free actions while stunned, which makes sense. Stunned never reduces your reactions, but it is clear that you can't use them while stunned. If this is the case, why is it not possible that you could have "standard" actions that you cannot use while stunned?


N N 959 wrote:
Losing actions is not the "cure" for Stunned. It is, in fact, the penalty imposed for being stunned. "You can't act" is used to inform the reader that during those stunned actions, you cannot act.

And I believe that this is not the case, as when you reduce regained actions due to stunned, you also reduce your stunned value. Stunned 4 does not mean that you are stunned for 4 rounds. It means that you are stunned until stunned has reduced 4 regained actions, which is actually 1.33 turns. (assuming you don't have a hasted action to give up)

Ruling either that you immediately lose actions from stunned or that you can use any actions while stunned EVER are both directly contradictory to the rules. Specifically the "you can't act while stunned" rule, which in this case would be the specific rule that would override the sidebar anyway.


Laran wrote:

You forgot to highlight the "unlike slowed or stunned" which means that the entire paragraph you are citing does NOT apply to either slowed or stunned.

Incorrect. That statement is only noting the difference between conditions that only say that you cannot act and those that reduce your gained actions. So long as Stunned meets the requirements of the rest of that paragraph, why would it not apply?

Reading comprehension is pretty important in pen and paper rpg's.

Look at it this way: Stunned is supposed to be worse than slowed right? We know this because it overrides slowed. If that is the case, why would it operate EXACTLY like slowed does, except worse? Slowed is always (as far as my quick search can find) for a set duration, so you would be Slowed 1 for X amount of time.

Stunned on the other hand is usually written, "You are stunned X". There are a few abilities that stun for X amount of time, but these are not the general case, they are a special case that is accounted for in the condition.

Anyway, why would stunned 1 be worse than slowed 1 for 1 minute ever? This is because while you are stunned, you cannot act. At all. With any actions. Like Reactions that stunned doesn't take away, but precludes you from using.

It's not that hard to understand.


Laran wrote:

So the two ways we are interpreting Stun effects that happen in the middle of your turn are:

1) That you are not stunned IMMEDIATELY if you get the condition as part of the opponents reaction. The adrenaline surge of completing the action delays the onset of stun until the next turn (that can happen IRL) or the sequence of events are adjusted so that stuns always occur last in your turn. You complete your turn and then on your next turn you feel the effect of the stun and "shake it off" by losing actions. This is supported by the rules which say you do not lose actions in the middle of your turn and that stun has an explicit action loss value

2) You are stunned immediately and lose all remaining actions as well as additional actions in your next turn. This interpretation is based upon the phrase "you can't act while stunned." The rules explicitly state how stun is to be handled and then provides the loss of all actions rule for all other conditions not explicitly mentioned

Since interpretation 1 follows the explicit rules and interpretation 2 creates contradictions in the rules (ex. if you lose all your remaining actions in 1 round PLUS more so the Stun 1 is actual a Stun 3 effectively), I would hold that Interpretation 1 is correct

What part of "you cannot act while stunned" doesn't make sense to you? Interpretation 1 is that Stunned only matters because you "lose actions". This is patently false. As I stated earlier, losing actions is not the penalty of stunned, it is the cure.

The penalty of stunned is that you cannot act while stunned. So as soon as you become stunned... you cannot act. Ignoring that is far more ignorant than ignoring that a sentence in a sidebar, that doesn't even specifically preclude Stunned from taking advantage of itself I might add, does.

Lets take a closer look at that clause.

CRB PG. 622 "Gaining and Losing Reactions" wrote:

Some conditions prevent you from taking a certain

subset of actions, typically reactions. 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.

You will note that at no time does this say that Stunned does NOT prevent you from acting. It simply states that there are conditions that stop you from acting, but don't change the number of actions you regain. This is a true statement. What it does NOT say is that Stunned does not do both. Which it does.

And because Stunned ONLY effects the actions that you regain, and NOT actions that you already have, if you were to be Stunned mid turn, or even mid action, you would essentially immediately have your turn ended. This is because while stunned you cannot act. And when "you can't act, you're unable to take any actions at all."


thenobledrake wrote:

Beowulf, look at the sentence after the party you bolded here:

"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."

The text is as clear as it can be that slowed and stunned are treated the same (kicking in at the start of your next turn), and that it is only other conditions which say "you can't act" that go into effect immediately (such as paralysis).

That's a fair point, however it doesn't change the fact that Stunned stipulates that you cannot act while stunned. It could perhaps be an artifact left in after a design change.

But if stunned stipulates that you cannot act, and you have actions while being stunned for whatever reason, you cannot use them. Because you cannot act. This is easily a case of Specific Overrides General at the very least.

I will say that the sidebar should be errata'd to reflect this.

But my original intent was to post in reaction to a poster farther up saying that Stunned should take away actions on the turn you gain it. This is simply not true, since it is very clear that stunned does not remove actions you already have, it reduces the number of actions that you regain.

Instead it should "lock" those actions as unusable on that turn, and then reduce the number of new actions they gain in subsequent turns.

I will also point out that the phrase, "unlike slowed and stunned" does not preclude that section from including stunned, so long as stunned meets the requirements of that section. Which is why I said, in the corner case situation that you already had actions when stunned is applied, say due to a trap, you would not "lose" any of those actions and the duration of stunned would not be reduced. You would simply not be able to use those actions.


It is very much clearly explained in the sidebar that I quoted twice. If you gain lose a condition that says that you cannot act (note that Stunned for sure does say that. You can ignore it if you want, but it does. In plain text.) while you still have actions, you can then act immediately.

I will agree that the exact mechanics of that are a bit vague, but in general I would say that your turn in initiative order would be placed immediately after whatever was acting when you were cured of the condition, for the sake of simplicity if nothing else.

I will also agree that Stunned feels like a special case: it does make you lose actions which disagree's with the wording in the sidebar. However it does not directly conflict with the wording of the sidebar entirely.

Observe: In stunned it states that you reduce the number of actions you would regain at the beginning of your turn. This means that you cannot lose actions mid turn, the condition states that very clearly. Since you are reducing gained actions, and not losing already had actions, the condition simply CANNOT take actions that you already gained away.

*Edit: Another thing to consider, what if you are hasted while being stunned? In this corner case I would say that you would not gain the extra Haste action, and your Stunned value would be reduced by 1. Since you are gaining a new action, and Stunned even leaves room for the chance that you may gain actions at times other than the beginning of your turn, this makes sense and agrees with the rules as written.

Which means that during the period where you have "inaccessible" actions due to having been stunned during your turn, you are eligible to benefit from the wording at the end of the sidebar, that if you are able to lose the condition you get to act immediately using whatever actions you had before you gained the condition.

This is actually a pretty easy conflict to reconcile that doesn't directly conflict with the rules, and keeps Stunned in it's place as "Slowed but worse".

It's a case of awkward wording at worst, or at least a designer not remembering that there is a special case "Cannot Act" condition that Also reduces actions.


I suppose a better way to look at Stunned is that losing actions on your turn is not the actual penalty of stunned. It's the cure.

The actual penalty is the fact that you cannot act AT ALL while stunned.

This means that even an effect that applies Stunned 1 to a foe is worthwhile, especially if it is applied during their turn, as it essentially ends their turn. The only downside to a low duration level Stunned effect is that it is over as soon as they lose 1 action on a new turn. But if applied during their turn it would in fact deny them an entire turn's worth of actions plus the one turn "spent" to end the condition.

!Bonus Point! Also consider: Applying Stunned 1 to a creature with AoO and then dancing around them to your hearts content, because they cannot use their reaction while stunned. Even if they are able to lose an action on their next turn and lose the Stunned condition, that still leaves them open while suffering from it. Could work very well to get ranged attackers or casters out of the line of fire.

*Edited for Clarity
*Double Edit for a Bonus Point of Consideration!


theservantsllcleanitup wrote:

From the text you just quoted:

Quote:
Quickened, slowed, and stunned are the primary ways you can gain or lose actions on a turn. The rules for how this works appear on page 462. In brief, these conditions alter how many actions you regain at the start of your turn; thus, gaining the condition in the middle of your turn doesn’t adjust your number of actions on that turn.

Sure. And then I bolded the section wherein it states that any Condition that states you cannot act, means you cannot act whilst having that condition.

CRB PG. 622 "Stunned" wrote:

You’ve become senseless. You can’t act while stunned.

Stunned usually includes a value, which indicates how
many total actions you lose, possibly over multiple turns,
from being stunned. Each time you regain actions (such
as at the start of your turn), reduce the number you regain
by your stunned value, then reduce your stunned value
by the number of actions you lost. For example, if you
were stunned 4, you would lose all 3 of your actions on
your turn, reducing you to stunned 1; on your next turn,
you would lose 1 more action, and then be able to use
your remaining 2 actions normally. Stunned might also
have a duration instead of a value, such as “stunned for
1 minute.” In this case, you lose all your actions for the
listed duration.
Stunned overrides slowed. If the duration of your
stunned condition ends while you are slowed, you count
the actions lost to the stunned condition toward those lost
to being slowed. So, if you were stunned 1 and slowed 2
at the beginning of your turn, you would lose 1 action
from stunned, and then lose only 1 additional action by
being slowed, so you would still have 1 action remaining
to use that turn.

Hence why I stated that I believe that the side bar is saying that the condition does not reduce your Actions on the turn that you are afflicted with it. This is so that the Condition is not immediately reduced, and possibly lost, as when the condition reduces an action it also reduces it's duration. This way, no matter what, a character who is stunned is "stunned" fully for one turn.

So, yeah, I still stand by that reading of the rules.

To summarize, if a character was in the middle of their turn, say after a move action, and becomes stunned, their turn effectively ends. They still technically have actions available, and if they were to lose the stunned condition due to another effect, say a spell, you can then:

CRB PG. 622 "Gaining and Losing Actions Sidebar Redux" wrote:
That means if you are somehow cured of paralysis on your turn, you can act immediately.

However if you do NOT lose the stunned condition before your next turn, you would Lose actions up to your maximum number of actions and reduce your stunned condition's duration by the number of actions you lose, potentially removing the Stunned condition, and making you able to use other actions, like Free and Reactions.

Is that clear enough?


Krugus wrote:
Jayjazz99 wrote:

Additional clarification : If you stun a creature while it's the creature's turn, it would loose the reminder of it's action for the turn. It will loose it's reaction also. Then, the next time the creature acts (assuming next round), the creature would regain it's actions reduced by the stun value. Correct ?

If so, this would make stunning a creature on a reaction very good.

If you stunned a creature while its in the middle of taking its turn, per RAW it wouldn't lose the reminder of its actions for the turn due to the Stunned (and slowed) Conditions only fire off at the start of their turn not during per side bar on GAINING AND LOSING ACTIONS these conditions alter how many actions you regain at the start of your turn; thus, gaining the condition in the middle of your turn doesn’t adjust your number of actions on that turn. <-- That's per RAW.

So its kinda silly because if you have a reaction that stunned a person that ran you by it should be applied right then but RAW states that it wont affect them till the next time they gain their actions. So if they ran past you and you got to use an AOO and it somehow stuns them they could run for 3 strides before it kicked in ;)

At my table the conditions affect you ASAP so if you got stunned 1 then it would remove your very next action.

I don't actually believe this is true. The part of the side bar you are referencing seems to be referring to Slowed, not stunned. Stunned outright states that you cannot act while stunned, therefore even if you still have actions, you cannot use them while you have the stunned condition. So if you had a reaction that stunned a creature, they would indeed not be able to continue their turn, and would lose additional actions at the beginning of their next turn. No house Rules required.

Case in point:

CRB PG. 622 "Gaining and Losing Actions" wrote:


Quickened, slowed, and stunned are the primary ways
you can gain or lose actions on a turn. The rules for
how this works appear on page 462. In brief, these
conditions alter how many actions you regain at the
start of your turn; thus, gaining the condition in the
middle of your turn doesn’t adjust your number of
actions on that turn. If you have conflicting conditions
that affect your number of actions, you choose which
actions you lose. For instance, the action gained from
haste lets you only Stride or Strike, so if you need to
lose one action because you’re also slowed, you might
decide to lose the action from haste, letting you keep
your other actions that can be used more flexibly.
Some conditions prevent you from taking a certain
subset of actions, typically reactions. 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.

I believe that not having the Stunned condition "drain" actions on the turn that you gain it, assuming it happened during your turn, is intended to stop the Stunned condition from reducing in value until at least the start of your next turn. After all, if you are "stunned for 1 minute," the Stunned condition states that in that case you can't act at ALL during that duration, which would include the turn you gained the stunned for 1 minute condition.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Bard: "What is that you are carrying?"

Barbarian: "Oh this?" *Points at halfling corpse slung over shoulder.
"This is my halfling of holding."

Bard: "Ah. Yeah, that makes sense."

On topic, I am actually glad that they got rid of the larger differences between the smaller races and the medium ones. Mostly they just relegated smaller folk to less front line tasks. I like the idea of a stout Halfling Paladin holding the line instead of making him go rogue in another life/ edition of the game.

Also while it doesn't make a ton of sense, I also like that Small and Medium creature gear is essentially interchangeable. It makes looting so much simpler. Now you don't have to notate that each weapon pulled from a small creature is small, and the stats are identical. It all just goes into "loot".


I would generally allow a player to "feed" a potion to another character without the receiving character spending any sort of action. As stated above, otherwise an alchemist is really lacking in active healing. After all, if no action was required for a character to open the mouth of an unconscious person they want to make shotgun an Elixer, then why should that same character be required to make an action because they are awake?

I like to imagine that all potions and elixirs are held in sippy cups with bendy straws for easy application mid combat.

1 to 50 of 250 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>