Can you take Free / Swift Actions when Nauseated?

[Daneel]

Reference:

Spoiler:

- PRD Nauseated: Creatures with the nauseated condition experience stomach distress. Nauseated creatures are unable to attack, cast spells, concentrate on spells, or do anything else requiring attention. The only action such a character can take is a single move actions per turn.

- PRD Actions in Combat

- PRD Staggered 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 creature with nonlethal damage exactly equal to its current hit points gains the staggered condition.

- Store Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play free PDF (Paizo.com account needed)

Quote:

The leadership of this organized play community assumes that you will use common sense in your interpretation of the rules.

Some other paizo.com threads discussing this here, here, here and here.

-

So we had this discussion last week at a PFS organized play table (so we can't use a house rule to resolve this). The GM used a Suggestion spell to send the Rogue off to "buy a healing potion" to save our unconscious Inquisitor. I was a Nauseated Oracle (thus the bleeding Inquisitor), but we had looted a Potion of Cure Light Wounds earlier, and my action was between the NPC's casting of Suggestion (and the Rogue's failed will save) and the Rogue's action. So I had the bright idea of "selling" my potion to the Rogue. And I told the Rogue so.

And the GM ruled that since Nauseated says "single move actions per turn" and Staggered says "can still take free, swift and immediate actions" my Nauseated Oracle couldn't talk - a Free Action.

So I'm a Rules Lawyer by nature, but that irritates most people, so I acquiesced to his ruling and the party's Wizard eventually managed to finish off the NPC (by stabbing him in the back when he ran away). And honestly, although I didn't like that my kewl idea had been nixed by the GM's call, at the time my reading of Nauseated made me think he was making the right call. And that's the GM's thankless job, arbitrating rules on the fly when your idiot players try something shady (and occasionally getting the by-the-seat-of-your-pants ruling wrong).

But later on I started thinking - so while Nauseated I can pick up my weapon off the ground (move) but I can't drop it (free)? I can draw a bolt from a quiver and load it into the crossbow (move) but I can't drop it (free)? I can sheathe a Greatsword (move) but I can't draw a dagger from a spring-loaded wrist sheath (swift)? I can stand up from prone (move) but I can't drop prone and a Rogue couldn't use their Stand Up rogue talent (free)?

Or here's a really weird one - if Nauseated I can't "concentrate on spells" but if Nauseated prevents free actions, "Cease concentration on a spell" is a free action. But apparently I can still "Direct or redirect an active spell" (move).

So being a good (bad?) Rules Lawyer I went to the forums to see if there was clarification, and found a bunch more contradictions where Personal target spells that remove Nauseated can't actually be cast while Nauseated or swift action Class abilities that cure Nauseated can't be used while Nauseated.

So Paizo assumes we all "use common sense in your interpretation of the rules" and the forums repeatedly suggest that "specific overrides general" when two rules seem to contradict (although I couldn't find that quote in any Paizo publication).

I think it's obvious that common sense indicates we should be allowed free actions when Nauseated, even though a RAW reading of Nauseated might seem to contradict it.

And I know the 3.0/3.5 rules of "the world’s most popular roleplaying game" where you trade down actions didn't roll over to Pathfinder - but the spring-loaded wrist sheath seems to imply that a swift action is faster and simpler than a move action - especially in comparison to the cheaper plain wrist sheath (see Adventurers Armory).

So if it was a home game, I'd house rule that the game's designers seem to have intended swift actions to be used to cure the Nauseated condition - either by a swift class ability or via a quickened spell.

-

Since this is a PFSOP table, what I really need is a ruling by a Paizo game designer. But in the meantime does anyone else have any thought? Is my logic flawed? Did I miss a line in the CRB that clarifies this?

Thanks.

[Uwotm8]

You need a ruling from the PFS folks, not a designer. Take it up there.

[Valiant]

I don't see what staggered has to do with the nausiated condition. They are two unrelated conditions.

You gain the Nausiated condition.
Specific rule overrules the general rule.

As such, Nauseated creatures are unable to attack, cast spells, concentrate on spells, or do anything else requiring attention. The only action such a character can take is a single move actions per turn.

So thats it. That's what you can do, because you are Nausiated. No swifts, free, standard or full round actions, or anything that requires attention...it's in the description of the condition.

Hope to have helped.

[ryric]

3.x didn't have trading down actions either(except Standard->move), that was a 4e thing.

I see your point about some of those free actions - I could come up with some rationalizations about others.

You can't speak because you're too busy throwing up, or trying not to.
You can't unclench your hand without focusing on it, so it's hard to just drop things.

That sort of thing. Admittedly the hand thing is pretty flimsy. I don't think there is a hard and fast rule here, so expect table variation. Personally I'd allow any free action that I could envision someone "sick out both ends" and miserable doing. I'd allow talking, for example.

No swift actions though. Those take more concentration than a nauseated character could give.

[Cap. Darling]

It says a single move action only. And talking is a free action. So no talking.

[blahpers]

"The only action you can take" is about as unambiguous as you could hope for. And why bring up staggered? It doesn't appear to be relevant to the question at all.

[Johnico]

I think Daneel was just bringing up Staggered since the GM used the fact that Staggered specifically says you can still take Swift/Free actions while being restricted to a single Move or Standard meant that Nauseated does not allow Swift/Free actions, since it similarly restricts your actions but doesn't include the language allowing Swift/Free actions.

As the others have said, by RAW, Move actions are it. No Swifts, Frees, or whatever else.

[Uwotm8]

Yes, however, the inconsistencies RAW creates require a GM ruling. The anologue to that in PFS requires a ruling be sought there and not here.

[Undone]

Valiant wrote:

As such, Nauseated creatures are unable to attack, cast spells, concentrate on spells, or do anything else requiring attention. The only action such a character can take is a single move actions per turn.

So thats it. That's what you can do, because you are Nausiated. No swifts, free, standard or full round actions, or anything that requires attention...it's in the description of the condition.

Hope to have helped.

This is wrong. If you can take a move action and are not explicitly forbidden you can take free or swift actions.

You cannot talk or do anything requiring concentration, no other free/swifts are mentioned.

[Redneckdevil]

"The only action....." part basically says it right there. Nothing else, ONLY action (swift/free/move/standard/full round/etc) is a single move action. Only that.

[graystone]

Well, you could do 'not an action' actions.

[LazarX]

graystone wrote:

Well, you could do 'not an action' actions.

That's debatable on a case by case basis.

[Bronnwynn]

LazarX wrote:

graystone wrote:

Well, you could do 'not an action' actions.

That's debatable on a case by case basis.

Err, no?

[Imbicatus]

Bronnwynn wrote:

LazarX wrote:

graystone wrote:

Well, you could do 'not an action' actions.

That's debatable on a case by case basis.

Err, no?

Actually, yes. You are explicitly unable to do anything that requires attention. This is regardless of action type. If your not-an-action or even move action requires attention, you cannot do it.

As a GM I would not allow reloading a crossbow or using a move action to move a spell effect for example.

[Bronnwynn]

Imbicatus wrote:

Bronnwynn wrote:

LazarX wrote:

graystone wrote:

Well, you could do 'not an action' actions.

That's debatable on a case by case basis.

Err, no?

Actually, yes. You are explicitly unable to do anything that requires attention. This is regardless of action type. If your not-an-action or even move action requires attention, you cannot do it.

As a GM I would not allow reloading a crossbow or using a move action to move a spell effect for example.

I'd argue that if you've put so much work into using crossbows that it's not an action to reload it, it's probably not something that requires any actual attention from you.

Disallowing spells is, ah, spelled out in the condition, so that's valid. But almost everything that's not an action is an inconsequential level of effort - mental or physical - that I'd allow while nauseated - and I say this is an avid fan of the hangover cleric.

There might be an exception somewhere, but I can't think of any.

[Uwotm8]

There is a clear relation to action type to amount of effort involved.

Quote:

Free Action: Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM.

Swift Action: A swift action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort and energy than a free action. You can perform only a single swift action per turn.

Not an Action: Some activities are so minor that they are not even considered free actions. They literally don't take any time at all to do and are considered an inherent part of doing something else, such as nocking an arrow as part of an attack with a bow.

The job of the GM is to determine case by case what actions fall where in terms of that effort and time involved. If you determine it's a free action or not an action then you're inherently determining it's basically inconsequential in terms of time and effort. The result of that which is the only one that makes sense is that you can then do those things even while under the effects of conditions like nauseated. If you don't then you're ruining your own internal consistency and are failing to provide a structure by which your players can anticipate your rulings which makes playing in your games a chore. However, the OP's case is for PFS. Those determinations have to happen there.

[Nefreet]

To the people claiming this is a "PFS issue", or that the OP should seek a "PFS ruling" "over there", you are incorrect.

This is regarding the general Pathfinder RPG ruleset, which is what PFS operates off of.

There is 0% chance of getting a PFS ruling here. That responsibility falls under the job description of the Design Team.

If/when they clear this up, us PFS folks will oblige.

[Uwotm8]

Negative. You can address me directly, BTW. Home games have GMs that can make distinct rulings on the spot. PFS GMs must defer their rulings to something other than themselves and essentially act as referees. The more expedient need falls to the PFS folks than the PF design team.

[Nefreet]

It is not Campaign Leadership's job, or responsibility, to create rules.

That, by definition, is the Design Team's job.

[Uwotm8]

They're not creating a rule. They need to make a decision on some inconsistencies with a condition. For example, being able to spend a move to pick something up but not a free action to drop it. There's no new rules around that. A GM-like determination needs made that it's allowable.

[graystone]

Nefreet wrote:

It is not Campaign Leadership's job, or responsibility, to create rules.

That, by definition, is the Design Team's job.

Is it beyond their job/responsibility to clairify something as vague as "anything else requiring attention" for their set of pathfinder rules? I'd think a consistent play experience from various GM's and groups would squarely fall within thier jobs.

Secondly, PFS does indeed make rules. For instance they swap out creation feats for some classes for other feats. So they can 100% make rulings for PFS.

This isn't me saying they should in this case, just that they could if they wished. I don't think this really affects enough people to be a pressing issue.

[Daneel]

Johnico wrote:

I think Daneel was just bringing up Staggered since the GM used the fact that Staggered specifically says you can still take Swift/Free actions while being restricted to a single Move or Standard meant that Nauseated does not allow Swift/Free actions, since it similarly restricts your actions but doesn't include the language allowing Swift/Free actions.

Correct.

[Daneel]

Uwotm8 wrote:

You need a ruling from the PFS folks, not a designer. Take it up there.

From the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play free PDF (Paizo.com account needed):

Quote:

The Pathfinder Society Community

You may not simply ignore rules clarifications made
by the campaign leadership, including the campaign
coordinator and campaign developer, on the paizo.
com messageboards. GMs are not required to read every
post on the messageboards, but GMs familiar with rules
clarifications made by the campaign leadership (which
have not been superseded by the Guide to Pathfinder Society
Organized Play or FAQ) must abide by these clarifications
or rulings. If it is a significant clarification, it will be
updated in the FAQ, and later in the Guide to Pathfinder
Society Organized Play if necessary.

So these forums are an authority source for PFSOP. I'm just looking for one of those "campaign leadership, including the campaign coordinator and campaign developer" people's opinions. If I'm in the wrong part of the messageboards, let me know and I'll be happy to repost there.

[Avatar-1]

The wording of those conditions is very legacy from older editions. It's likely that...

Nauseated wrote:

The only action such a character can take is a single move actions per turn.

...actually refers to being unable to perform standard or full round actions.

Even in PFS, GMs are allowed to make calls on rules that sound like the designers have made a mistake. From Daneel's quote, if they clarify it, a GM can't then ignore the FAQ/clarification.

It's important to remember the Paizo guys are very busy and not superhuman - they won't catch and fix every mistake the day they're discovered; some will take years to find and fix.

[Avatar-1]

Uwotm8 wrote:

The more expedient need falls to the PFS folks than the PF design team.

The PFS guys can make clarifications on PFS-specific rules, like "can I use This Spell to benefit my day job roll?"

The designers need to make clarifications on Pathfinder-specific rules, like "this condition seems badly worded. Is it, or is it just me?"

[Daneel]

Valiant wrote:

So thats it. That's what you can do, because you are Nausiated. No swifts, free, standard or full round actions, or anything that requires attention...it's in the description of the condition

And I agreed with you when the GM made the ruling.

-

But assuming Nauseated disallows free actions creates a paradox where you both have to stop concentrating on a spell and can't take the free action to stop concentrating on a spell. Resolving this absurd paradox at a PFS table as a GM is easy, but it requires the GM to say "well, even though Nauseated says you can't use a free action, I'm going to rule you have to take this free action." The common sense the PFS leadership wants us to use when playing makes resolving this rules ambiguity easy.

But the mere existence of the paradox begs the question, are there other free actions that common sense dictates should be allowed while Nauseated? And a simple comparison of the Actions in Combat table shows there are lots of free actions that are simpler versions of move actions - like falling prone vs standing from prone. It's contrary to common sense to rule that someones who's "sick at both ends" can't fall down unless someone else knocks them over, but can easily stand up without help.

Unfortunately, if I assume Nauseated didn't intend to eliminate free actions like falling prone, then it brings the question of swift actions into play. The same logic indicated by a literal reading of the Nauseated condition that eliminated free actions also eliminates swift actions; and if I allow one... Well, I don't like using the slippery slope logical fallacy, but in this case it may apply. And this is complicated by the other Nauseated inconsistencies, like a Personal-target spell or swift class ability that removed Nauseated. Why invent them if you can't use them?

Which makes me curious: am I reading the rule correctly? Or has an unintentional ambiguity in the wording created an unexpected effect? PFS advises I ask here.

[LazarX]

Uwotm8 wrote:

Negative. You can address me directly, BTW. Home games have GMs that can make distinct rulings on the spot. PFS GMs must defer their rulings to something other than themselves and essentially act as referees. The more expedient need falls to the PFS folks than the PF design team.

Actually, that's wrong. PFS GMs ARE empowered to make on the spot decisions to keep the table running. If players have a problem with the decisions made they can contact the local venture officers.

[Murdock Mudeater]

The idea is that you feel sick and are either focusing on suppressing your vomit or actively vomiting. Either way, your entire being is focused on how nauseated you are. Doesn't have to be vomit, but that's the general idea.

Says move actions, but I think it means you can only move or preform simple, semi-automated actions, like stumbling along while focusing on how sick you feel.

I think the intention is that a nauseated caster would not be able to concentrate on their spell. They would lose the spell, unless it would continue going without their concentration.

If you had a free action, or a swift action, which would be preform-able by a nauseated person, as described in this post, it might be allowed if I were your DM. It may count as your move action, depending on what the action is.

For summary:

Sickened is when you are sick, but able to take care of yourself at home, it usually involves playing video games or reading a book while taking medicine. This is the kind of sick that children say they have to skip school, whether true or not.

Nauseated is when you are so actively sick that you require constant surveillance by a very concerned loved one, whom you are very fortunate to have. This is a highly unpleasant sickness, where you are unable to enjoy yourself or even get enough rest. This is not the kind of sickness that children pretend to have - this is kind where the parents have to take a sick day to take care of their child. No one, not the parent nor the child, enjoys themselves.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

Yet another nail in the coffin as to why one shouldn't play PFS.

That being said, I don't get how a Nauseated character isn't effectively Helpless, given their extremely limited ability. Additionally, think about the other limiting factors that Nauseated should imply with the ruling that you guys are implementing; if you can't use weapons to attack, what makes you think you can use armor or shields to defend? How can you even use your legs to move when that too requires concentration, deciding where you need to go, maintaining the usage of your limbs, etc.?

To me, the whole "requires concentration" refers to the activity of spells that have Concentration for a duration, or to be a bit more general, concentration checks for spells/spell-like abilities. It's never really defined in the book, and if we take the literal definition, then it affects just about every damn thing you could think of, and the concept of you thinking about what you could think of too.

In that same token, if "extreme stomach distress" is all it takes for the Nauseated condition to occur, the next broken character concept is giving every enemy you come across diarrhea.

[Daneel]

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Yet another nail in the coffin as to why one shouldn't play PFS.

PFS is like eating at McDonald's. While there's nothing wrong with it, your entire diet shouldn't consist of just that.

[LazarX]

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Yet another nail in the coffin as to why one shouldn't play PFS.

That being said, I don't get how a Nauseated character isn't effectively Helpless, given their extremely limited ability. Additionally, think about the other limiting factors that Nauseated should imply with the ruling that you guys are implementing; if you can't use weapons to attack, what makes you think you can use armor or shields to defend? How can you even use your legs to move when that too requires concentration, deciding where you need to go, maintaining the usage of your limbs, etc.?

To me, the whole "requires concentration" refers to the activity of spells that have Concentration for a duration, or to be a bit more general, concentration checks for spells/spell-like abilities. It's never really defined in the book, and if we take the literal definition, then it affects just about every damn thing you could think of, and the concept of you thinking about what you could think of too.

In that same token, if "extreme stomach distress" is all it takes for the Nauseated condition to occur, the next broken character concept is giving every enemy you come across diarrhea.

Was there actually a point to this other than making an anti-PFS rant? If a player wants to try something while nauseated on a table I'm running whether PFS or not, he need merely say what it is and on a case by case basis, I'll let him know whether it's possible or not. I'd even allow him to drop something that he's holding to his feet as a free action. Anything else beyond that...that depends.

[Murdock Mudeater]

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Spoiler:

That being said, I don't get how a Nauseated character isn't effectively Helpless, given their extremely limited ability. Additionally, think about the other limiting factors that Nauseated should imply with the ruling that you guys are implementing; if you can't use weapons to attack, what makes you think you can use armor or shields to defend? How can you even use your legs to move when that too requires concentration, deciding where you need to go, maintaining the usage of your limbs, etc.?

To me, the whole "requires concentration" refers to the activity of spells that have Concentration for a duration, or to be a bit more general, concentration checks for spells/spell-like abilities. It's never really defined in the book, and if we take the literal definition, then it affects just about every damn thing you could think of, and the concept of you thinking about what you could think of too.

In that same token, if "extreme stomach distress" is all it takes for the Nauseated condition to occur, the next broken character concept is giving every enemy you come across diarrhea.

They are different. A vomiting nauseated character can use the move action to grab a bucket to vomit into. Vomiting helpless character would just vomit onto where ever they were facing.

As capitalizing on nauseated condition with character creation, there are builds and archetypes for that. Main issue is that most of the builds are evil or require evil spells. To be fair, no one enjoys being nauseated, so someone that purposely causes it is probably evil...

Blight druids come to mind for a potentially non-evil build. Idea is that your druid was a happy little smurf, but then a bunch of jerk wizards decided it was a good "empty" spot to have a massive magic battle. You are a druid of the environment that was left...

[voideternal]

Daneel wrote:

so while Nauseated I can pick up my weapon off the ground (move) but I can't drop it (free) ... I can stand up from prone (move) but I can't drop prone

Wow, re-reading Core, it seems like RAW supports this statement.

... My common sense is screaming to me, "NO!"

Please, somebody, prove me wrong. I really don't like what RAW is telling me.

[David_Bross]

Well, fortunately GM's are allowed to decide what people can and can't do, so when common sense screams, you can listen, even as a PFS GM.

You have to run RAW, but if someone wants to take a free action, and if you deem it reasonable, you can let them take it. In this case you're ruling that it takes less effort than a move.

Talking is something you could reasonable prohibit when nauseated. Its hard to talk during emesis. Quick drawing a weapon I'd prohibit. Dropping a weapon or dropping prone? I'd allow.

[Peet]

It seems to me that dropping held items and falling prone probably shouldn't be counted as actions at all, because you can do them when you are unconscious (and generally must do so).

[Daneel]

David_Bross wrote:

Well, fortunately GM's are allowed to decide what people can and can't do, so when common sense screams, you can listen, even as a PFS GM.

As a devil's advocate example: Nauseated doesn't specify you can take not-an-actions, like breathing; move actions only. After all Hold Person specifies you can breathe, so if Nauseated says "only move actions" then a Nauseated character can't breathe, right? Or make saving throws? Because those aren't move actions.

But that's ridiculous, and no GM (PFS or otherwise) should ever follow RAW to that degree, even if a strict wish-granting-genie parsing of the sentence might seem to imply that. Unless you're NPCing a genie. Then it's okay.

Maybe RAI Nauseated was intended to be like Staggered but with no standard actions? The Personal-target spells and swift class abilities would seem to imply that, and it would make more sense than the way RAW Nauseated is written. And in a home game I'd just house-rule the problem away - but for PFS the process of using a house-rule (aka FAQ/Errata) is a bit more formal.

[Peet]

I think Nauseated should also bar swift actions as well. But free actions, well that's another story.

[Murdock Mudeater]

Peet wrote:

It seems to me that dropping held items and falling prone probably shouldn't be counted as actions at all, because you can do them when you are unconscious (and generally must do so).

Quote:

The only action such a character can take is a single move actions per turn.

This line is misleading. You focus on it, rather than the bulk of the intended effect. Here is what matters:

Quote:

"Creatures with the nauseated condition experience stomach distress. Nauseated creatures are unable to attack, cast spells, concentrate on spells, or do anything else requiring attention.

This is it. Basically, your attention is focused on experience major stomach distress. If the move action violates this one, you can't do that.

On a side note, you can certainly go prone a move action. You wouldn't normally, because why do it as a less advantageous action type.

Mind you, if going prone was somehow an attack, then you can't as per the text. You can't cast spells, even move action spells. Very clearly laid out.

In regards to actions which don't violate this middle line, nicely ask the DM about it. I'd probably allow it, though it depends what the action is. I may make it count as a move action. Any DM should do this as long as you present a reasonable action to work within the effect.

[Stefan Hill]

Cap. Darling wrote:

It says a single move action only. And talking is a free action. So no talking.

And fair enough, ever tried talking while throwing up ;)

[Nefreet]

"Foul Demon, I shall not succumb to your wicked ways, and I shall smite you back to whence you came!"

"Hooorr-hucck-huck-hurrr-hummm... hack... *spit*... *cough*"

[Imbicatus]

"Oh my god, my insides are on fir--Huruuuugh."

[ElementalXX]

Murdock Mudeater wrote:

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

They are different. A vomiting nauseated character can use the move action to grab a bucket to vomit into. Vomiting helpless character would just vomit onto where ever they were facing.

As capitalizing on nauseated condition with character creation, there are builds and archetypes for that. Main issue is that most of the builds are evil or require evil spells. To be fair, no one enjoys being nauseated, so someone that purposely causes it is probably evil...

Blight druids come to mind for a potentially non-evil build. Idea is that your druid was a happy little smurf, but then a bunch of jerk wizards decided it was a good "empty" spot to have a massive magic battle. You are a druid of the environment that was left...

Did someone said smurf?

[Victor Zajic]

Uwotm8 wrote:

You need a ruling from the PFS folks, not a designer. Take it up there.

PFS admins don't make ruling that that. They go by what the rules and the developers say. If this question was posted on the PFS boards, it would get moved to the rules forum.

[Uwotm8]

Yeah, that's backwards to me. There's no new rules being made. The rules in isolation as they are currently is fine. It's a confluence of rules that's the issue and needs an interpretation on what is allowed and isn't allowed that is being sought just the same a GM would do running a home game.

[Nefreet]

Uwotm8 wrote:

just the same a GM would do running a home game.

Exactly.

For rules that don't concern homegames, and that are by their very nature "PFS-specific", you can freely seek an answer over in the PFS Forums.

This is not, in any way, specific to the PFS Campaign, so it was moved to the appropriate section.

Placing threads where they appropriately belong typically increased the likelihood of getting an appropriate answer.

I fail to understand why you are arguing against getting your questions answered.

[Dave Justus]

voideternal wrote:

Daneel wrote:

so while Nauseated I can pick up my weapon off the ground (move) but I can't drop it (free) ... I can stand up from prone (move) but I can't drop prone

Wow, re-reading Core, it seems like RAW supports this statement.

... My common sense is screaming to me, "NO!"

Please, somebody, prove me wrong. I really don't like what RAW is telling me.

Of course you can drip your weapon. There is always the manipulate an object move equivalent that, among other things, would include the dropping of a weapon. Usually you wouldn't use it for that, because you could just choose to use the free drop a weapon action, but since you can't take free actions, you might in this circumstance.

[Uwotm8]

Nefreet wrote:

This is not, in any way, specific to the PFS Campaign, so it was moved to the appropriate section.

Sure, it is. The situation herein is easily an issue that can have multiple rulings, almost all of which are valid, depending on the GM's outlook on what the rules are supposed to mean. On issues where the rule itself is fine but needs a certain context for particular situations (i.e. within a campaign) is where the PFS leadership itself needs to make a determination for PFS games. It doesn't mean the rules need changed. Asking the PDT to clarify what nauseated can and can't do in the OP's particular situation creates an inherent context that then inserts itself into the game overall which is bad as rules are supposed to help support the mechanics of the game and not the context (i.e. story) being used. There are perfectly valid story elements that could say the nature of how you became nauseated don't let you use free actions to drop items. Those bits and pieces where story and rules mix are, in fact, campaign specific and should be administered by the people in charge of the campaign. In this case that's PFS.

[Nefreet]

Considering the leader of the PFS Campaign disagrees with you, I don't see this getting moved back.

Perhaps after you've spent more time posting on the forums you'll become aware of the nuances of which topics belong in which forum.

[Uwotm8]

I wasn't aware the leader of that campaign moved the post here. In any case, I still disagree.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

LazarX wrote:

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Yet another nail in the coffin as to why one shouldn't play PFS.

That being said, I don't get how a Nauseated character isn't effectively Helpless, given their extremely limited ability. Additionally, think about the other limiting factors that Nauseated should imply with the ruling that you guys are implementing; if you can't use weapons to attack, what makes you think you can use armor or shields to defend? How can you even use your legs to move when that too requires concentration, deciding where you need to go, maintaining the usage of your limbs, etc.?

To me, the whole "requires concentration" refers to the activity of spells that have Concentration for a duration, or to be a bit more general, concentration checks for spells/spell-like abilities. It's never really defined in the book, and if we take the literal definition, then it affects just about every damn thing you could think of, and the concept of you thinking about what you could think of too.

In that same token, if "extreme stomach distress" is all it takes for the Nauseated condition to occur, the next broken character concept is giving every enemy you come across diarrhea.

Was there actually a point to this other than making an anti-PFS rant? If a player wants to try something while nauseated on a table I'm running whether PFS or not, he need merely say what it is and on a case by case basis, I'll let him know whether it's possible or not. I'd even allow him to drop something that he's holding to his feet as a free action. Anything else beyond that...that depends.

You read the first part of my sentence, and then assume it's all about PFS? All I implied was blanket rulings like what the PFS GM in question created causes a lot of otherwise unintended consequences for those affected by such a condition, making the game un-fun and therefore another good reason as to why such a game shouldn't be played.

I then went on to assume that, if the PFS GM was actually correct, what his ruling results in: a denial of common sense and making characters/creatures with the ability to make enemies Nauseated the next meta when it comes to PF.

Under that same concept, when it comes to PFS, the RAW is the LAW. If it says you can only take move actions, you can only take move actions. There is no common sense when it comes to PFS, there can't as it probably would betray the RAW of the game; the closest thing to common sense is RAI, and the GM has demonstrated here that he doesn't have and/or use it.

Think about it for a moment: The written examples say you can't attack, you can't cast or concentrate on spells, etc., and that you can take only move actions. The limitation from that also means, following that train-of-thought RAI that the GM has ruled, you can't breathe, you can't eat, you can't sleep, you can't use armor, shields, and weapons properly, you can't drop things, you can't talk, you can't use special class features or items to remove the condition, you can't even dig through your bags, much less use anything that's in your bags. You're basically a flesh sack running around like a decapitated chicken waiting to be thrown into the meatgrinder; and you can't do a damn thing about it by yourself except by being immune to it, which, unless you're a Paladin, is an impossibility.

But, the Quick Runner's Shirt and the Divine Protection feat are both "too good" for players to use? Can you say "double standard"?

The point I make is that if the PFS GM is providing that much limitation to that condition, it's synonymously no different than the Helpless or even Unconscious conditions in its limitations, something that is hardly the intent of what the condition is supposed to imply.