Really, the question as asked has its answer, but the OP doesn't want to hear it.
For fun let's try a different scenario that's more obnoxious by far.
Attacker makes a 5ft step then unleashes a full-attack on Defender. Just before the attacks start, Friend uses some weird immediate action (or perhaps a readied action) to cast haste on Attacker. Attacker should get one extra attack, I'd think... because they spend the majority of their round in hasted.
Well, let's say Friend for some reason waited until Attacker had only one of his iterative attacks left. Maybe Attacker has used three of four attacks by the time haste kicks in. Do you as a DM give Attacker a fifth?
Worse, what if Friend waits until Attacker has finished all four attacks but hasn't declared he's done for the round (there's still the option of free and swift actions). Wizzt, haste. Do you let Attacker have a fifth attack?
Really worse. What if Attacker needs to get somewhere and moves (30ft) before Friend casts haste. Well, hey, now Attacker has move 60, right? So they can finish their round with a second move (60ft) for a total distance of 90ft. Makes sense, right? And if haste had been cast at the start of the movement he'd have managed 120ft, right? And if Friend waited until the movement was finished, he'd only have moved 60ft and you wouldn't say "okay, Attacker can move another 60ft because he was hasted this round", right?
Because you have a brain. Rounds can be subdivided and chronology tells you the order that things take place actually matters. That's why someone who's killed by an AoO doesn't get to complete their action. That's why someone who's staggered by an AoO acquires that condition and may not be able to do anything further in that round.
Letting someone delay the impact of becoming staggered until their next round is silly. Doing so benefits the Attacker but punishes the Defender. Players could be on either side of that fence, so you MUST rule sensibly and not just say "hey Attacker, go ahead, I know you're staggered but that starts now so make an attack or something". You know that if a BBEG pulled that on a player, the player would come after you with a flaming pitchfork and run you out of town as a DM. It's deeply in the cheese section of the grocery store.
Really, the question as asked has its answer, but the OP doesn't want to hear it.
For fun let's try a different scenario that's more obnoxious by far.
Attacker makes a 5ft step then unleashes a full-attack on Defender. Just before the attacks start, Friend uses some weird immediate action (or perhaps a readied action) to cast haste on Attacker. Attacker should get one extra attack, I'd think... because they spend the majority of their round in hasted.
Well, let's say Friend for some reason waited until Attacker had only one of his iterative attacks left. Maybe Attacker has used three of four attacks by the time haste kicks in. Do you as a DM give Attacker a fifth?
Worse, what if Friend waits until Attacker has finished all four attacks but hasn't declared he's done for the round (there's still the option of free and swift actions). Wizzt, haste. Do you let Attacker have a fifth attack?
Really worse. What if Attacker needs to get somewhere and moves (30ft) before Friend casts haste. Well, hey, now Attacker has move 60, right? So they can finish their round with a second move (60ft) for a total distance of 90ft. Makes sense, right? And if haste had been cast at the start of the movement he'd have managed 120ft, right? And if Friend waited until the movement was finished, he'd only have moved 60ft and you wouldn't say "okay, Attacker can move another 60ft because he was hasted this round", right?
Because you have a brain. Rounds can be subdivided and chronology tells you the order that things take place actually matters. That's why someone who's killed by an AoO doesn't get to complete their action. That's why someone who's staggered by an AoO acquires that condition and may not be able to do anything further in that round.
Letting someone delay the impact of becoming staggered until their next round is silly. Doing so benefits the Attacker but punishes the Defender. Players could be on either side of that fence, so you...
As may be clear to the more peceptive reader,i hope you are rigth. But i also think that you by the very argument you present above admit that this i a DM ruling and not some obscure rule on a page my cat ate.
I thank you for your time and when i get to the time where i need to Continental my GM of letting my Magus stop chargers with a second level spell. I will hope he sees as you:)So to be clear if i have a ready action and some dude take a move action to go and hit me, and i stagger him rigth before he get to attack me. Do he then get to take his standard action attack? The part of the round where my brain tells me he is staggered does that allows him that standard action or does the move action he took before he was staggered now count as his one action that round? Or does the ordre of things mean somthing Else here?
And for simplicitas sake i stagger him with a frigid touch spell on my Magnus sword.
Edit: removed a confusing joke.
Bizbag@ i am sorry to inconvience you, now you have used the time to try and help me. Even i you are a bit arrogant about it.
As i have statet several times i hope you are correct but i dont undestand your reasoning. Gauss gave a good explanation. But you mostly talk about things that to me seem no more relevant than the starvation rules.
And the assumtions you and Anguish ( and sorry if i am forgetting som body) make about what i think make me doubt that i have been clear at all. (But i think Lincoln Hills was)
If this still sound like " i want it to be like i want!!!" Feel free to put me on ignore.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Try thinking of it this way:
When you become staggered, you're limited to one action. There are three possible scenarios:
1) You haven't acted yet. You get one action. (0 < 1)
2) You've taken one action. You're done for the turn, because you've reached your limit. (1 = 1)
3) You've taken more than one action. You're over your limit and can't do anything else. (2 > 1)
The fact that you became limited after you've taken the actions doesn't mean they didn't happen. You just don't have any left to use.
Try thinking of it this way:
When you become staggered, you're limited to one action. There are three possible scenarios:
1) You haven't acted yet. You get one action. (0 < 1)
2) You've taken one action. You're done for the turn, because you've reached your limit. (1 = 1)
3) You've taken more than one action. You're over your limit and can't do anything else. (2 > 1)The fact that you became limited after you've taken the actions doesn't mean they didn't happen. You just don't have any left to use.
I guess that is what i will bring to my GM along with what Gauss does. Thanks
What is additionally interesting is Charging in particular.
Pouncy Druid: Charges 20 ft to defender
Defender: Uses AOO + Staggering Critical to inflict Staggered Condition.
Now... the fact is that you CAN charge while staggered, you simply don't get to double-move. You only get a single move. So if the charger in this case only moved 20ft. to charge does he still resolve his charge? If it was a pouncing cat druid does he still get his full allotment of attacks? Certainly this could use clarification. Pounce clearly states that you can "make a full attack" when making a charge. Staggered states that you can't take full-round actions. HOWEVER, charge states that you can still charge when limited to a standard action.
So, does the charge end even though the character could have made that charge if they started the round staggered? Can they still get a full-attack? Or is that action prohibited even though it isn't technically using up a "full-round action". If the Druid is staggered at the start of his turn, can he still pounce on targets within 30ft. and get his full-attack, effectively negating the staggered effect?
I guess that is what i will bring to my GM along with what Gauss does. ThanksTry thinking of it this way:
When you become staggered, you're limited to one action. There are three possible scenarios:
1) You haven't acted yet. You get one action. (0 < 1)
2) You've taken one action. You're done for the turn, because you've reached your limit. (1 = 1)
3) You've taken more than one action. You're over your limit and can't do anything else. (2 > 1)The fact that you became limited after you've taken the actions doesn't mean they didn't happen. You just don't have any left to use.
Good luck and have fun. Remember that there's no wrong way to play so long as everybody is having fun. : D
Pounce modifies the Charge action, which can be used while Staggered, so yes, a Pouncer can make full attacks - if they can pull off the Charge.
Oh wow. I hadn't thought of that. So a staggered lion could only take a single attack--unless it partial charges, in which case it can move and full-attack as a standard action.
Yeah, that isn't going to fly in my game.
Official Rules Response
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
FAQ: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9rb0
Limited actions on my turn: If an AOO or other interrupting effect reduces what actions I can take on my turn, does this reduction apply immediately?
Yes, even if it interrupts or limits your in-progress.
For example, if you are making a full attack and attempt to trip your opponent, but you provoke an AOO because you don't have Improved Trip, and your opponent has a spell storing weapon that's storing a hold person, and you fail your save against the spell, you are immediately paralyzed and can't take any of your remaining actions (including the remainder of your full attack).
Likewise, if your opponent had the Staggering Critical feat instead of a spell storing weapon and the attack staggered you, you would immediately gain the staggered condition, which would prevent you from taking any actions that violate the staggered condition's limitations. If you provoked by taking a move action to move through the opponent's threatened area, you could finish that move action but could not also take a standard action after it. If you provoked as part of a full attack (as with the trip example), becoming staggered would end your full attack at that point and prevent you from taking a move action after the staggering attack. It doesn't matter if the AOO happened because of your first attack in your full attack or your last allowed one, being staggered ends your full attack at that point because you can't make a full attack if you're staggered.
Works for me. :)
- Gauss
Unsurprising but very cool that PDT took the time to answer this.
Thanks for the answer and to all that helped get it :)
If you provoked by taking a move action to move through the opponent's threatened area, you could finish that move action but could not also take a standard action after it. If you provoked as part of a full attack (as with the trip example), becoming staggered would end your full attack at that point and prevent you from taking a move action after the staggering attack.
Why would you be able to complete a move, but have to stop in the middle of a full attack? I'd think you'd have to stop moving right there.
If you provoked by taking a move action to move through the opponent's threatened area, you could finish that move action but could not also take a standard action after it. If you provoked as part of a full attack (as with the trip example), becoming staggered would end your full attack at that point and prevent you from taking a move action after the staggering attack.Why would you be able to complete a move, but have to stop in the middle of a full attack? I'd think you'd have to stop moving right there.
A the start of their turn a player has a move and a standard action available. I believe the case they are addressing here is if you start to move, and during the process of that move you become staggered, you may finish your move, but your standard is now lost.
Now if they used their standard, then started to move and were staggered mid move I'd assume their movement immediately ends.
If you provoked by taking a move action to move through the opponent's threatened area, you could finish that move action but could not also take a standard action after it. If you provoked as part of a full attack (as with the trip example), becoming staggered would end your full attack at that point and prevent you from taking a move action after the staggering attack.Why would you be able to complete a move, but have to stop in the middle of a full attack? I'd think you'd have to stop moving right there.A the start of their turn a player has a move and a standard action available. I believe the case they are addressing here is if you start to move, and during the process of that move you become staggered, you may finish your move, but your standard is now lost.
Now if they used their standard, then started to move and were staggered mid move I'd assume their movement immediately ends.
That would make sense, but it's explicitly not what they said.
That would make sense, but it's explicitly not what they said.
Isn't it?
If you provoked by taking a move action to move through the opponent's threatened area, you could finish that move action but could not also take a standard action after it. If you provoked as part of a full attack (as with the trip example), becoming staggered would end your full attack at that point and prevent you from taking a move action after the staggering attack.
Unless you mean... you would get to take at least one attack of your full-attack action.