| 6 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
What if i as an attack of opputunity or a immediate action(as i assume the spell storing armor proberty is ment to be using) give some one the staggered condition?
The conditions that turns you off like stun, daze or dead are easy to figure out but what with staggered?
Do i interrupt what ever my attacker is doing or is he really first staggered after his turn?
If this is a well known thing and i am a retard please let me know:)
Your opponent take immediately the condition. So immediately after your aoo, your opponent apply the staggering condition.
I'm not sure I understand your question, but if you're asking will other players know if one is staggered the answer is probably. I can't think of how to describe staggered in non-metagaming terms, but certainly that player could say something as a free action to indicate that he isn't well and that something has happened. How you would specifically describe that you've been staggered I'm not sure, but thats details.
I just looked up the spell storing armor quality and this will require further research. As written it is a swift action, which can't be done outside your turn, which means the property doesn't work as written.
An AoO interupts and resolves before the provoking act, but you get into a weird situation where if you can stagger as an AoO and the enemy moves to you and his attack (tripping with Improved Trip?) provokes and then you stagger he couldn't have actually made the attack.
I think this has been discussed before, but I don't remember the resolution.
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 condition should take effect immediately upon being inflicted. So I'm guessing the victim can no longer follow through on its original intent if it already spent a move or standard action that round.
Unless the triggering action was free, swift or immediate.Though I'm not sure how that would work if the triggering action was an AoO itself...
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
its not so much an aoo.
its some spell in spell storing armor.
so he would have to hit you already to trigger it.
so i think the attack would still happen, and then he'd be stunned/dazed/staggered after that.
its not an AoO. where the action happens technincally before the trigger.
the spell is discharged as a consequence of being hit. so you've already been hit, and taken damage, and then the armor would discharge its spell. i think ( i haven't actually looked it up, this just sounds like the logical flow of events ).
Based on the title of the thread I thought this was a suggestion for a new feat or trait that added resistance to wisdom damage.... Was going to suggest moving it to homebrew.
I'm not sure I understand your question, but if you're asking will other players know if one is staggered the answer is probably. I can't think of how to describe staggered in non-metagaming terms, but certainly that player could say something as a free action to indicate that he isn't well and that something has happened. How you would specifically describe that you've been staggered I'm not sure, but thats details.
I just looked up the spell storing armor quality and this will require further research. As written it is a swift action, which can't be done outside your turn, which means the property doesn't work as written.
An AoO interupts and resolves before the provoking act, but you get into a weird situation where if you can stagger as an AoO and the enemy moves to you and his attack (tripping with Improved Trip?) provokes and then you stagger he couldn't have actually made the attack.
I think this has been discussed before, but I don't remember the resolution.
The question is: if you mid action are reduced to only take a standart action pr round.
Have you alreday taken that action if you have made a standart or part of a full round action?
Or does it not take effekt until after the round?
If you are staggered by an AoO duing a charge, what then?
If you are staggered by somthing as an effekt of you second attack duing a full attack where you have some attacks left, what then?
Staggered is a special condition because it dosent just give a penelty. or shuts you down.
So basically, what you're asking is this:
If someone tried to full-attack you and you had some interrupting ability that makes them staggered, would they be forced to down-step their full-attack to a standard attack action and then forego their move and, furthermore, if this interrupt happens after the first attack in a full-attack (ie. on the third attack), would they be able to complete the remainder of the action or does it cut off after that particular attack?
Basically, it's asking whether the actions are subsumed right at the beginning when you declare or whether they are counted as subsumed after the action has completed. Lets take another example; the enemy takes a standard attack against you, then tries to move away, provoking an AoO. Your AoO staggers them; can they continue moving away because they already spent the move or is their movement denied because they no longer have a move action to "pay" for the movement they're attempting? What about if they were in mid-move? Honestly, it's ambiguous by my reading so we really should have something that delineates action completion priorities. You have my FAQ.
Yes sir!
and thank you :)
Ok folks remember to FAQ the post rigth above this one.
Other action limiting conditions like stunned, dazed, or unconscious would stop your full attack. I think staggered would too since you no longer qualify to perform a full round action (though a pouncing tiger would still qualify to charge as a standard action and therefore be unaffected). I see this as being like how if somebody readies an action to hit you with Stunning Fist they can stop you right in your tracks during the middle of your move action.
How I've ruled it in my own game (happened last Friday).
Sorcerer ran away from a polearm fighter. Provoked. Polearm fighter hit, confirmed a crit, and had Staggering Critical. She staggered him. He was in the middle of movement, so he continued movement. However, he couldn't do anything else. He'd immediately become staggered.
From Cap D's question, yes, a character who became staggered after taking his first iterative attack would lose the rest. FAQs indicate a character can drop back to a standard attack action from a full after the first attack (in the case he kills on the first hit being a good reason to). Given that, the stagger would force him to do that. Assuming he hadn't 5 ft adjusted yet, he could then 5ft adjust if he wanted to, but that would be it. His attacking and movement are done.
Bump.
FAQ it folks you know you want to!
And it is Lincoln Hills Post 4 up from this one!
No need.
No need.
No need for what?
Unless i am mistaken, and i have been before, this question( the one posed by Lincoln Hills 7 posts up is not answered elsewere?So FAQ it folks :o)
Or tell me and the 17 others where the answer is.
The way I have always run it is that the actions you have available to you are determined at the start of your turn.
Example: If you are staggered at the start of your turn then you have only one action.
Example2: If you become staggered after your first action but before your second you still have your second action because the number of actions available is determined at the start of the turn.
This is not written anywhere, just my interpretation of when/how you get your available actions in a round.
Why did I go this route? Because I asked myself what happens if a person starts the round staggered and then has the staggered property removed? Examples: Slow is dispelled, damage is healed, etc.
If you are reduced by suffering the staggered condition wouldn't you similarly gain the lost action if you remove it?
The answer was unsatisfactory. You should not gain a new action because a condition was removed.
In any case, it is an area not covered in the rules. I look forward to seeing what the FAQ says.
- Gauss
The way I have always run it is that the actions you have available to you are determined at the start of your turn.
Example: If you are staggered at the start of your turn then you have only one action.
Example2: If you become staggered after your first action but before your second you still have your second action because the number of actions available is determined at the start of the turn.
This is not written anywhere, just my interpretation of when/how you get your available actions in a round.
Why did I go this route? Because I asked myself what happens if a person starts the round staggered and then has the staggered property removed? Examples: Slow is dispelled, damage is healed, etc.
If you are reduced by suffering the staggered condition wouldn't you similarly gain the lost action if you remove it?
The answer was unsatisfactory. You should not gain a new action because a condition was removed.
In any case, it is an area not covered in the rules. I look forward to seeing what the FAQ says.
- Gauss
I see your point.
And to those exitet about the upcoming FAQ it is Lincoln Hills Post 9 up from this one that need the clik.
No need.No need for what?
Unless i am mistaken, and i have been before, this question( the one posed by Lincoln Hills 7 posts up is not answered elsewere?
So FAQ it folks :o)
Or tell me and the 17 others where the answer is.
No need, as in there's no need for the developers to clarify this. Every other condition takes effect immediately; why would this one be kind enough to wait until you're out of attacks?
If you get blinded during a full attack, you're going to make your next attacks while blind.
If you get paralyzed during a full attack, you're done attacking.
If you get killed during a full attack, well, you know.
No need.No need for what?
Unless i am mistaken, and i have been before, this question( the one posed by Lincoln Hills 7 posts up is not answered elsewere?
So FAQ it folks :o)
Or tell me and the 17 others where the answer is.No need, as in there's no need for the developers to clarify this. Every other condition takes effect immediately; why would this one be kind enough to wait until you're out of attacks?
If you get blinded during a full attack, you're going to make your next attacks while blind.
If you get paralyzed during a full attack, you're done attacking.
If you get killed during a full attack, well, you know.
And what does that mean in relation to the staggered condition?
If you know the answer please clarify a bit more:)
And for the rest of you. The Post that NEED YOUR FAQ is Lincoln Hills 11 up from here.
I still can't believe nobody liked my joke...
Come on.. Doesn't anyone want a feat or a trait called 'staggering ignorance'?
I still can't believe nobody liked my joke...
Come on.. Doesn't anyone want a feat or a trait called 'staggering ignorance'?
He he sorry. I Think is Will have to be somthing Like save bonusses vs. Illusions and mind Reading and higher DC to bluff and intimidate. With the added effekt that it staggers the opponent if it works? +2 on the saves and +5 on the DC sounds about rigth. And pehaps prerequsite max int 8?
Edit: and keep the FAQs coming folks it is Lincoln Hills post 13 up from here:)
Edit: and keep the FAQs coming folks it is Lincoln Hills post 13 up from here:)There really is no need. There is no other case where the effect does not take place immediately and have its effect. When paralyzed, you lose your remaining actions. When staggered, you lose any remaining actions beyond your standard for that round. There is no precedent to be any different.
There is no precedent for any of it. By your ruling becoming staggered in your own turn is almost the same as having been it from the beginning. I tend to agree with you but i think Gauss makes a powerfull argument for the opposite.
And case you, my esteemed reader, agrees?
Hit the FAQ. It is Lincoln Hills post just 15 up from this one.
Just a fem more and we will get it, i know:)
There is no precedent for any of it. By your ruling becoming staggered in your own turn is almost the same as having been it from the beginning. I tend to agree with you but i think Gauss makes a powerfull argument for the opposite.If Gauss' argument was true, you could continue taking actions until your turn was over if you are *dead*, if actions are only determined at start of turn. And don't give me any nonsense about dead characters taking actions; we've been over this, and they can't. So clearly your action economy can be interrupted. If you become staggered after a Swift action, you get your standard action still. If you've completed more than that, your regular actions end (but you can make any swift/free actions you're entitled to.)
I am not at all in the " dead folks can do stuff without necromancy realm"
But i think there is a big difference between being staggered coming on as a retrospective thing and not and i can see, with the help of Gauss arguments for both sides.And dont use stun, death and petrify as exampels to clarify because no one is in doubt how works with them!
And remember this FAQ needs YOU ( only 17 posts up Lincoln Hills post, it is)
Edit: because my English sucks and danish spelling control dosent help.
No need.No need for what?
No need for the FAQ button to be pressed. Actions are processed in the order they happen. Attacks of opportunity (for instance) state that they are resolved before the action that triggered them. That is why you cannot "trip-lock" someone.
So. If Attacker goes after Defender and Defender has some ability that interrupts Attacker's attacks, that ability is resolved before the attacks are. The specifics of the condition aren't relevant; whatever the condition is, it is applied.
Want a good example? Attacker starts casting disintegrate at Defender, but did not do so defensively and had nowhere to 5ft to, so it provokes. Defender gets an attack of opportunity. Defender uses that AoO to kill Attacker. Attacker is dead. Attacker does not get to complete his spell. Attacker does not get to make a Concentration check to see if they don't lose the spell due to excess damage. Attacker is dead. Dead is sufficient to cause the loss-of-spell. Defender does not get disintegrated.
Take your pick what the condition is. Paralyzed, dead, unconscious, staggered, petrified, frightened, prone... whatever. It gets applied before the action that caused it to be applied is completed.
Dead people don't cast spells and staggered people don't make full attacks. If that happens partway through your turn and you've already consumed the actions you are permitted while having the staggered condition, you are done for the round because staggered says you're allowed to do X during your round. If you've done X, you've done X.
Specifics, just so I'm really clear here:
1}Attacker makes a 5ft step then swings at Defender. Defender uses an immediate action to impose the staggered condition on Attacker. Attacker gets to finish his attack because he has so far taken neither a standard nor a move action.
2}Attacker moves 10ft towards Defender then swings. Defender uses an immediate action to impose the staggered condition on Attacker. Attacker is done for the round and the swing is never completed.
There is no precedent for any of it. By your ruling becoming staggered in your own turn is almost the same as having been it from the beginning. I tend to agree with you but i think Gauss makes a powerfull argument for the opposite.If Gauss' argument was true, you could continue taking actions until your turn was over if you are *dead*, if actions are only determined at start of turn. And don't give me any nonsense about dead characters taking actions; we've been over this, and they can't. So clearly your action economy can be interrupted. If you become staggered after a Swift action, you get your standard action still. If you've completed more than that, your regular actions end (but you can make any swift/free actions you're entitled to.)I am not at all in the " dead folks can do stuff without necromancy realm"
But i think there is a big difference between being staggered coming on as a retrospective thing and not and i can see, with the help of Gauss arguments for both sides.
And dont use stun, death and petrify as exampels to clarify because no one is in doubt how works with them!And remember this FAQ needs YOU ( only 17 posts up Lincoln Hills post, it is)
Edit: because my English sucks and danish spelling control dosent help.
Yeah, the annoying FAQ request spamming? Not helping your case.
It's a condition. Precedent has been set that conditions affect you immediately. The idea of "staggering" even supports it--Grognard was going to full-attack you, but you've staggered him, knocking him off-balance and unable to finish his action while he rights himself.
If you're playing in Gauss's game, you're in good shape. There's really nothing preventing an unconscious opponent from finishing that coup de grace you were trying to interrupt, but it's your game.
Edit: Anguish said it much better.
There is no precedent for any of it. By your ruling becoming staggered in your own turn is almost the same as having been it from the beginning. I tend to agree with you but i think Gauss makes a powerfull argument for the opposite.If Gauss' argument was true, you could continue taking actions until your turn was over if you are *dead*, if actions are only determined at start of turn. And don't give me any nonsense about dead characters taking actions; we've been over this, and they can't. So clearly your action economy can be interrupted. If you become staggered after a Swift action, you get your standard action still. If you've completed more than that, your regular actions end (but you can make any swift/free actions you're entitled to.)I am not at all in the " dead folks can do stuff without necromancy realm"
But i think there is a big difference between being staggered coming on as a retrospective thing and not and i can see, with the help of Gauss arguments for both sides.
And dont use stun, death and petrify as exampels to clarify because no one is in doubt how works with them!And remember this FAQ needs YOU ( only 17 posts up Lincoln Hills post, it is)
Edit: because my English sucks and danish spelling control dosent help.
Yeah, the annoying FAQ request spamming? Not helping your case.
It's a condition. Precedent has been set that conditions affect you immediately. The idea of "staggering" even supports it--Grognard was going to full-attack you, but you've staggered him, knocking him off-balance and unable to finish his action while he rights himself.
If you're playing in Gauss's game, you're in good shape. There's really nothing preventing an unconscious opponent from finishing that coup de grace you were trying to interrupt, but it's your game.
Edit: Anguish said it much better.
No need to be rude there is functions in the forums that will allow the clever poster to ignore this thread.
Anguish most likely have a point in exampel 1 but i think his exampel 2 is not as clean cut as you and he seem to belive.Back in the days when staggered was only about being on 0 hp i think most folks would allow the attack to be made and the staggered to start dying.
I think i get your position but i am uncertain of it validity, i kinda hope you are rigth since that will fit my plan, but letting once hope read the book leeds to all sort of silliness.
And with the chance of offending sensitive posters i will once again repeat my Call to FAQ. It is Lincoln Hills just 20 above this one.
For those misquoting my position, please desist.
A) A condition that prevents you from taking actions still prevents you from taking actions. Stun, Dead, etc all still work that way.
B) A condition that changes the number of available actions is at debate here.
Arguing that one is the same as the other is disingenuous.
At no point did I advocate that a condition that prevents you from taking actions does not kick in until your next turn.
I advocated that what actions you have available are determined at the start of the turn. That does not change a determination of being able or unable to perform actions due to being dead etc.
- Gauss
There's no difference; it's just another framing of the same thing. Staggered prevents you from taking more than a standard action. Similarly, being dead changes the number of actions you can take in a round to zero.
blahpers, which is it? Prevents or changes? You just stated that Staggered prevents while Dead changes and yet you also stated that they are the same. They are not the same since prevents has a clearly different definition from changes.
To use two clear examples (since Dead is not clearly defined):
Stunned states you cannot take actions. Not that you do not have actions, but that you are unable to act.
Staggered states that you may take a single move action or standard action each round.
Thus, clearly, Stunned prevents actions while Staggered changes the available actions which is what I stated in my last post.
- Gauss
How is this a FAQ candidate? The ruling on AoO is very clear and simple. They are resolved before the action they interrupt.
It is only logical that any condition carried by the AoO is also immediately resolved, before the action the AoO interrupted, unless the condition is one that takes longer to become effective, such as a poison or disease with an incubation period.
In this case, if the AoO delivered a staggered condition, and the action that provoked was a move or standard action, then the action would be completed after the AoO (provided the provoker was still alive) and he would have only free, swift and immediate actions left to him for the round.
If the action that provoked was a free (unlikely), swift or immediate action, then the provoker would still have a move or standard action left to him for the round.
This stuff is not rocket science. It doesn't need to be explained in painstaking detail.
blahpers, which is it? Prevents or changes? You just stated that Staggered prevents while Dead changes and yet you also stated that they are the same. They are not the same since prevents has a clearly different definition from changes.
To use two clear examples (since Dead is not clearly defined):
Stunned states you cannot take actions. Not that you do not have actions, but that you are unable to act.Staggered states that you may take a single move action or standard action each round.
Thus, clearly, Stunned prevents actions while Staggered changes the available actions which is what I stated in my last post.
- Gauss
Either can be defined using the term "prevents" or "changes"; there's nothing special about your distinction because there is no distinction between the two.
Staggered: Prevents you from taking a standard and a move action; alternately, changes the available actions to you in the round from M+S to S.
Stunned: Prevents you from acting that round; alternately, changes the number of actions you can perform to zero.
Your line of reasoning is not going anywhere. Find a more convincing argument--or don't, and just play it your way.
blahpers,
My problem is that you and Bizbag stated things about my game that I did not state and that you had no way of knowing about one way or another. It was insulting behavior. However, rather than sinking to your level I chose to explain the difference between my interpretation of the rules and how you seem to think I run my games. If you would care to retract the insults we would be fine. :)
As for RAW, in my initial post I stated this topic is unclear and that this was how I chose to resolve the lack of clarity. Now, you may think this issue is clear, that is fine, but I do not and that is why I hit the FAQ button.
- Gauss
Bizbag, my apologies for lumping you in with blahpers on that. My point is that you both took what I was stating for one condition and ran with it to apply it to conditions where I did not state they applied to as if I had.
- Gauss
Not at all. I stated that the logic you used to justify that decision didn't really hold up when applied to RAW. That wasn't intended as an insult, and apparently I didn't realize that you were stating it as a house rule. There's no beef to be had there; my list of house rules grows at least once per session. I just didn't want anybody thinking it would hold up in a PFS game or something.
I apologize for any misunderstanding.
Thanks blahpers :)
- Gauss
Thanks blahpers :)
- Gauss
Cheers!
If there is no grey area and the rule is clear. And becoming staggered mid action amounts to the same as having been it all along?
Let me ask you then. The one rund duration is that spend on the round where i impose the condition? So assuming i use crane riposte with my spellstoring weapon (having frigid touch there) on an enemy that charged me.
By your ruling will he be staggered for no effect? Or will it also affect his next round?
And if you need to talk about other conditions, please make it relevant.
One round is one round is one round.
If he's staggered on Initiative 15, he's staggered until the end of initiative 16 the next round. If he's staggered in the middle of his own attack for one round, and loses part of his action, he's fine the next round and this is perfectly legit as he has experienced the issue for one round and lost half his action. If he's staggered before his initiative this round, he loses it this round, and if it's after his action this round, he's staggered next round.
The point is, if he's staggered for one round, he loses one full round action and can only take a move or standard once. Whether that is the next action, or the current action, is really beside the point. The point is, he has the same penalty regardless of when it applies.
When the rules refer to a "full round", they usually mean a span of time from a particular initiative count in one round to the same initiative count in the next round. Effects that last a certain number of rounds end just before the same initiative count that they began on.
If you staggered him before he completed the charge and his attack, it would hinder him. If you staggered him after his attack, it would not.
If you staggered him before he completed the charge and his attack, it would hinder him. If you staggered him after his attack, it would not.
Exactly.
Suzie Staggerer : I ready an action to attack if anyone charges me.
Charlie Charger : I charge Suzie.
GM : Ok, Charlie charges up, is about to attack Suzie, but she has a readied action and it interrupts Charlie since it's a readied action.
Suzie : I roll, I hit. I do 23 pts. Roll a save or be staggered.
Charlie : I roll a 3, I fail.
GM : Charlie is staggered, he can't complete his attack because he lost his action, since the readied attack is resolved before his, and now he's staggered.
Let me ask you then. The one rund duration is that spend on the round where i impose the condition? So assuming i use crane riposte with my spellstoring weapon (having frigid touch there) on an enemy that charged me.
By your ruling will he be staggered for no effect? Or will it also affect his next round?This is a very specific corner case, because you are making an attack of opportunity, but only AFTER you have resolved his attack (you deflected it). He's already used all his actions that he might have otherwise lost. Technically, it's still his turn, and he can make swift or free actions still. As a GM, I'd rule that a penalty that doesn't actually hinder you isn't a penalty, so he'd be staggered his next turn, with it ending immediately after his turn.
You seem to be trying to say that it must be all-or-nothing; that there are these options:
1. Effect is retroactive, which is false because of causality issues.
2. Effect begins after turn.This is a false choice fallacy; other solution exists besides those two.
And if you need to talk about other conditions, please make it relevant.They ARE relevant. You have yet to show why they are not.
I am sorry but i think the bruden of evidence is with you because i simply dont undestand the relevanece of the other conditions.
Also can you please show me some of the other solutions?And again, i regeret if i am simply retardet and cannot undestand whatt is plain to see for everybody.
And please try to explain it without assuming i dont undestand stuff i claim to, like casuality and stuff.
And thanks for your time:)
And edit: for spelling and to remind folks to FAQ but i think most folks that would do it have don it by now.