|
Let's say my monk is on Init 10 and the enemy on Init 11.
On my turn, I run in and trip the enemy.
On his turn, he stands up, provoking an Attack of Opportunity, and hit him with Stunning Fist (this happens on Initiative Count of 11, the enemy's turn).
The trouble is, Stunning Fist is worded
"in addition to dealing damage normally. A defender who fails this saving throw is stunned for 1 round (until just before your next turn)"
So, in this case, "until just before your next turn" is immediately.
Is this actually how it works in RAW, or logically should it continue for one round, until the next Init count 12 comes up?
By RAW, yes, it is just before your next turn. Because your turn is immediately after the attack in your example it is a very short 'duration'.
Example 1:
Lets say you act on init 20 and he acts on init 19. You trip him and when he stands up (provoking) you stun him. He is stunned until init 20 next round.
His available actions? None between the time you AoO him and your initiative. He has lost whatever remaining actions he had on his turn (including the action to stand up because that provokes BEFORE he is up).
Example 2:
You acted on init 10 (last round) to trip him. It is now the next round on init 11 and when he stands up (provoking) you stun him. He is stunned until init 10 this round.
His available actions? None between the time you AoO him and your initiative. He has lost whatever remaining actions he had on his turn (including the action to stand up because that provokes BEFORE he is up).
What is the difference? Well, because Stun does not cause him any penalties other than the loss of actions the only difference between the two examples is that in Example 2 he has his AoOs and immediate actions available to him sooner than in Example 1.
- Gauss
The stun is active until just before that point in time again on the next round.
Stunning fist is worded that way because the writer incorrectly assumed it would only be used on your turn, but the rule for effects is the end X number of rounds/minutes/etc later just before that same initiative.
Wraithstrike, while that may be correct as the 'behind the scenes' RAI, it is still not RAW. The RAW is that the Monk will only affect his target long enough to screw up the current set of actions. That alone is pretty powerful.
What is more, if we go with your interpretation the Monk will be affected for two sets of actions, not one as intended. The set of actions which includes his standing up and the set of actions in the following round.
- Gauss
The stun should end just before the affected character's go on the following turn, not on his turn so that would be one set of actions.
wraithstrike, in the OP's example if it ends on the following turn then it would affect the target for two rounds.
Turn 1, Init 10 the Monk trips the Enemy.
Turn 2, Init 11 the Enemy provokes an AoO from the Monk by trying to stand up.
The Monk stuns the Enemy and so the Enemy loses his action and all remaining actions.
Turn 2, Init 10 by the Stun should end, but using your interpretation it does not.
Turn 2, Init 10 the Monk beats up the Enemy.
Turn 3, Init 11 the Enemy is still stunned from Turn 2.
Turn 3, Init 10 the Stun ends.
Turn 3, Init 10 the Monk beats up the Enemy.
Actions the Enemy lost: A move action and a standard action in Turn 2. A Move action and a standard action in Turn 3.
Turn 1, Init 10 the Monk trips the Enemy.
Turn 2, Init 11 the Enemy provokes an AoO from the Monk by trying to stand up.
The Monk stuns the Enemy and so the Enemy loses his action and all remaining actions.
Turn 2, Init 10 the Stun ends.
Turn 2, Init 10 the Monk beats up the Enemy.
Turn 3, Init 11 the Enemy acts.
Turn 3, Init 10 the Monk acts.
Actions the Enemy lost: A move action and a standard action in Turn 2. No actions lost in Turn 3.
Summary: The RAW is clear, the target is stunned only until just before your next turn.
However, if people use your interpretation it means that stunning on an AoO is inordinately powerful. You effectively get two rounds of effects rather than one.
Perhaps a house rule where these kinds of actions last exactly one round (start and stop on a specific initiative count). However, that house rule would be a more cumbersome to deal with because it would require that people remember what initiative count effects started on (and thus stop on) rather than just start and stop on their turn.
- Gauss
Turn 1, Init 10 the Monk trips the Enemy.
Turn 2, Init 11 the Enemy provokes an AoO from the Monk by trying to stand up.
The Monk stuns the Enemy and so the Enemy loses his action and all remaining actions.Turn 2, Init 10 by the Stun should end, but using your interpretation it does not.
Turn 2, Init 10 the Monk beats up the Enemy.Turn 3, Init 11 the Enemy is still stunned from Turn 2.
Turn 3, Init 10 the Stun ends.
Turn 3, Init 10 the Monk beats up the Enemy.Actions the Enemy lost: A move action and a standard action in Turn 2. A Move action and a standard action in Turn 3.
Not quite. The stun should end before the turn on which it was applied.
Turn 2, Init 11 the Enemy provokes an AoO from the Monk by trying to stand up.
The Monk stuns the Enemy and so the Enemy loses his action and all remaining actions.
Turn 2, Init 10 the Monk beats up the Enemy.
Turn 3, Init 11 the Stun ends.
Turn 3, Init 11 the Enemy acts.
Turn 3, Init 10 the Monk acts.
Actions the Enemy lost: A move action and a standard action in Turn 2. No actions lost in Turn 3.
The stun should end just before the affected character's go on the following turn, not on his turn so that would be one set of actions.
This is how I read it, too. I see where you're coming from Gauss, but I think you're elevating form over substance in this regard.
If the NPC was stunned on or just before initiative count 11, that stun lasts until the following rounds and ends just before initiative count 11.
fretgod99,
The problem with your interpretation is that it does not state anywhere in the rules that the stun lasts until the same initiative count the following turn.
This is the rules forum, not the house-rules forum. As I stated upthread, you could always implement the exact houserule your example just used.
What it does state is that the defender is stunned for 1 round and then defines that by stating "until just before your next turn".
A defender who fails this saving throw is stunned for 1 round (until just before your next turn).
It does not state "1 round (until the next initiative count)."
- Gauss
I recognize that issue. But that's why I say you're elevating form over substance. The intent is clear. Having a stun last for literally one initiative count (if even that) is simply silly. The ability was clearly written without taken out-of-turn actions into account. If you want to call it a houserule that's fine. I think it's pretty clearly how the rule ought to work, and it's how the rule likely was intended to work.
EDIT: The ability does however say the defender is "stunned for 1 round". The literal interpretation means that the defender must be stunned for at least one round. So to be fair, the literal interpretation is either one round from stunning (so it goes by initiative count and last for 1 actual round) or the defender is stunned for over one round (beginning on the initiative count the stunning occurs on and ending just prior to your initiative count at least one round later).
The rules forum is Form over Substance because it is the rules forum. RAW is king here, RAI a distant second, and houserules are only spoken in hushed tones.
Just to be clear, I am not stating how I would run things. How I run things is often different from my posts in the rules forum. I have houserules and use more common sense interpretations than actual RAW interpretations. (Example: I actually do use an initiative to initiative count for most turn based effects.)
I swear, I need to start putting in a disclaimer because people seem to think that my statements as to what the RAW is are actually how I run things. :)
- Gauss
Edit: fixed the Form over Substance statement...doh!
The rules forum is Forum over Substance because it is the rules forum. RAW is king here, RAI a distant second, and houserules are only spoken in hushed tones.
Just to be clear, I am not stating how I would run things. How I run things is often different from my posts in the rules forum. I have houserules and use more common sense interpretations than actual RAW interpretations. (Example: I actually do use an initiative to initiative count for most turn based effects.)
I swear, I need to start putting in a disclaimer because people seem to think that my statements as to what the RAW is are actually how I run things. :)
- Gauss
I know you're just advocating for what you think the literal interpretation of the rules should be (not how you run your games). What I'm say is if the intent is clear and a patent, literal interpretation of a rule leads to a ridiculous result, we ought not be pushing that literal interpretation of the rule.
That an interpretation might be harsh or unwanted is of no consequence; it's the nature of rules. But a result that is simply unworkable or contrary to any utility of the ability isn't the same thing. It says it lasts 1 round, then parenthetically explains that to be until the beginning of the next turn of the attacker. I don't think reading 1 round to mean 1 initiative count is intended, even if it's the literal interpretation of the parenthetical. Reading it that way ignores the primary directive, which is that the stun is supposed to last for 1 round. I'm saying put the emphasis on "1 round" because placing it on the parenthetical leads to ridiculous results. That's equally RAW, but using the intent of the ability to make it workable.
Even with it being 1 initiative count as opposed to initiative 11 to initiative 11 it is still effective in blocking 1 round's worth of actions.
Ultimately, the only thing lost/gained is the potential of the target's AoOs and immediate actions so I do not find it to lead to ridiculous results.
- Gauss
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It means what is says until the start of your next turn. It meant this way so it does not create a chain of stun lock. In other words, it may not be smart to use this ability on an attack of opportunity just before the start of your next turn, because you will not get a lot of bang for your buck.
It means what is says until the start of your next turn. It meant this way so it does not create a chain of stun lock. In other words, it may not be smart to use this ability on an attack of opportunity just before the start of your next turn, because you will not get a lot of bang for your buck.
Well there we go. That answers that!
So it does. Thank you for your time Stephen Radney-MacFarland. :)
- Gauss
It means what is says until the start of your next turn. It meant this way so it does not create a chain of stun lock. In other words, it may not be smart to use this ability on an attack of opportunity just before the start of your next turn, because you will not get a lot of bang for your buck.
How would one cause stun lock if the effect ended before the initiative count on the stunnee's next turn? They'd only be stunned for the remainder of their current turn.
Regardless, thanks for the insight!
How would one cause stun lock if the effect ended before the initiative count on the stunnee's next turn? They'd only be stunned for the remainder of their current turn.
I believe that the concern was that counting 1 round only might be interpreted in terms of when it occurred during the turn, and this language clarified it so it could not be taken in that way. Of course, it also lowers the potential of a two-round stun lock if one used it as the AoO and then did it again on their turn as part of their turn.
Part of it comes with the bits of ambiguity that X round durations have in a system with turns and special initiative actions that allow you to change your placement in the initiative order. Some of it was to have just extra clarity with an ability that is really quite good and had a higher potential for abuse.
There are probably other considerations that I am missing, as I was working somewhere else when the Core Rulebook was being playtest and developed, but I believe those are the main ones and the reason for the parenthetical in the feat's text.
Good gaming, and watch your Stunning Fist on AoO.
Makes sense. Thanks again.
|
|
Thanks for the insight!
However, Stunning Fist can only be attempted once per round, so stunning during an AoO wouldn't cause stun lock. In fact, stun lock can occur during normal use:
My turn: I trip them
Their turn: They stand up, I stun them. They lost the rest of this turn.
My turn: I hit them.
Their turn: Stun ends, they act normally. (No stun lock)
My turn: I stun them
Their turn: They lose this turn, are stunned.
My turn: Their stun ends, I stun them again.
Their turn: They lose this turn, are stunned (Now we have stun lock).