|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread is making me nauseous.
Also, some of it sounds like an episode of House.
"So, the patient can walk, and he can get out of bed, but he finds it hard to let go of objects."
"Loss of manual dexterity? Arthritis?"
"But when we asked him to mount a horse and then reload a light crossbow, he managed it just fine. It took him twelve seconds."
"Is he vomiting?"
"Not sure. I asked him, but he couldn't talk."
"...lupus?"*shrugs*
Would you rather the GM just killed your PC on the failed save then?
I'd rather they killed this thread.
Well , the rules are written in this case , no action other than a move one.
With that said , even if they would actually change this , considering how fast they FAQ anything , this should take quite the long time to answer so no changes till next year or so.
I think I could buy a nauseated creature being unable to perform swift actions since in Pathfinder you cannot convert a move action into a swift action. However, a free action clearly does require less effort than a move action (since under normal circumstances you can perform as many free actions as you want on your turn, subject to a DM's call in regard to common sense limitations).
Until this FAQ ruling, nobody really had a reason to want to convert a move action to a free action -- but it would make sense if we could get a follow-on ruling that allowed you to convert that single move action you can perform while nauseated into a free action. I suspect that a lot of us will make that into a house rule until then.
In the combat rules under free actions it states that you can take free actions with other actions... so if you have a move action, you can take free actions (I'll put my relevant pastes below)
Also in the combat section is suggests that if your round is limited in what actions you may take, that you still get your swifts and frees, as long as you still have at least a move or standard available to you.:
Here are the pastes from the PFSRD (Emphasis mine)
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.
Some combat options are free actions meant to be combined with an attack. Often, these are feats with specific limitations defined within the feat—for example, Cleaving Finish gives you an extra melee attack, but only after you make an attack that drops a foe. Source: PPC:MTT
Restricted Activity
In some situations, you may be unable to take a full round's worth of actions. In such cases, you are restricted to taking only a single standard action or a single move action (plus free and swift actions as normal). You can't take a full-round action (though you can start or complete a full-round action by using a standard action; see below).
I think the only GMs that are denying you free and swift during nausea or other restricted rounds really like to make their players suffer.
|
In the combat rules under free actions it states that you can take free actions with other actions... so if you have a move action, you can take free actions (I'll put my relevant pastes below)
That's been covered in this very thread and has also been proven irrelevant by the FAQ.
I think the only GMs that are denying you free and swift during nausea or other restricted rounds really like to make their players suffer.
Maybe that...
...or they simply follow the FAQ posted by the Pathfinder Design Team that says you don't get free and swift actions when nauseated.
It's a good thing rules don't have to make sense.
Ugh.
I'm glad they gave an answer, even though I find it ridiculous, but man does this make me glad I game at home and can blatantly disregard it.
I think the only GMs that are denying you free and swift during nausea or other restricted rounds really like to make their players suffer.Maybe that...
...or they simply follow the FAQ posted by the Pathfinder Design Team that says you don't get free and swift actions when nauseated.
Or, we could be reading the FAQ incorrectly,
Nauseated and Actions: Does the nauseated condition really mean what it says when it says “The only action such a character can take is a single move action per turn” or does it just mean I can’t take a standard action?
The nauseated condition really means what it says. You are limited to one move action per round, and not any other actions. Compare to the staggered condition, which says “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.”Emphasis mine.
Look at the first bolded section. The question is written in a funny way and kind of nonsensical. It seems to be asking if one is limited only to move actions rather than just a single move action. But I've never heard of a condition or restriction in PF where you are denied Standard actions, but can take two move actions instead. So the question, itself, confuses the issue.
Now look at the second bolded section. Many of us, including myself, interpret this as a comparative way to show what you don't get the free, swift, immediate. But is that what they are saying or are they just giving us the relevant part of the staggered condition text?
Buttressing the idea we can't take free, swift, etc is the part of the FAQ that says, "and not any other actions." But the Nauseated Condition does not say you can't take swift, free, immediate. It says you can only take "a single move action." It doesn't lay out any other special conditions or restrictions with...
So, you believe the PDT read this FAQ question, very likely read view points in this very thread which already explained all of this, then intentionally answered in such a fashion as to still leave the answer to the question ambiguous?
(I disagree with this FAQ, but the intent is clear).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you need any further confirmation.
That's a crappy way for you both to do it. Sorry, but it's true. You posted a link here. I click it and all I see is "Mark, you got a moment for this?" which forces me to click that link to see what "this" means.
Then Mark's answer is "you have it well in hand" which forces me to scan that thread to see what your answer is to find out just what is well in hand?
Wouldn't it be better if you had asked "Mark, you got a moment to explain that the Nauseated FAQ restricts to just a move action with no free or swift actions?" and then he might have said "Yes, that's true, Nauseated allows only a move action an no free or swift or other actions."
That would have taken you an extra 10 seconds and would have saved him time (after all, you made HIM read that other thread too instead of just giving him a clear question) - and then it would have saved EVERYBODY time so we don't have to click through multiple links, wait for page loads, and then read, collate, and understand who posted what to be "well in hand".
TL;dr: Please, when posting for clarity, be clear...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In fact, for the benefit of future readers, I'll just quote it now.
Before the FAQ, there was a solid ambiguity caused by the general rules vs. the nauseated rules, which required a PDT ruling (it was a solid topic to FAQ, good searching FAQ fans who brought this one up). Now though? It's pretty clear, and you and Cavall have it well enough in hand.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you need any further confirmation.That's a crappy way for you both to do it. Sorry, but it's true. You posted a link here. I click it and all I see is "Mark, you got a moment for this?" which forces me to click that link to see what "this" means.
Then Mark's answer is "you have it well in hand" which forces me to scan that thread to see what your answer is to find out just what is well in hand?
Wouldn't it be better if you had asked "Mark, you got a moment to explain that the Nauseated FAQ restricts to just a move action with no free or swift actions?" and then he might have said "Yes, that's true, Nauseated allows only a move action an no free or swift or other actions."
That would have taken you an extra 10 seconds and would have saved him time (after all, you made HIM read that other thread too instead of just giving him a clear question) - and then it would have saved EVERYBODY time so we don't have to click through multiple links, wait for page loads, and then read, collate, and understand who posted what to be "well in hand".
TL;dr: Please, when posting for clarity, be clear...
I have a rule based on observation from previous FAQs that I don't post follow-ups to FAQs because they never help, no matter what. Since I was asked a question in my AMA, I responded to it there, thus making it an unofficial AMA answer to TOZ, but I'm not posting it here as an unofficial (but everyone will think it's official since it's in the thread) follow-up to a FAQ. What I'm taking from this post is that I'll just have to tell people "No" next time they ask for any follow-up thoughts from me on my AMA thread. That's too bad, but I guess I can do that.
Mark, you don't have to be negative about it.
Seems like the PDT has tons of power to help people on these forums by clarifying understanding of rules in question. That's awesome and we all appreciate that.
You're already willing to do that as evidenced by the post I was talking about - all that I'm suggesting is to make is helpful without being cryptic, without making everybody who wants the help have to read multiple posts on other threads to find out what you're trying to say. Then it would be truly helpful.
Don't turn your back on that power. Just please be more efficient with it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mark, you don't have to be negative about it.
Seems like the PDT has tons of power to help people on these forums by clarifying understanding of rules in question. That's awesome and we all appreciate that.
You're already willing to do that as evidenced by the post I was talking about - all that I'm suggesting is to make is helpful without being cryptic, without making everybody who wants the help have to read multiple posts on other threads to find out what you're trying to say. Then it would be truly helpful.
Don't turn your back on that power. Just please be more efficient with it.
In fact, I don't have the power to issue official clarifications; only the Pathfinder Design Team forum account does, but posts about the rules in these threads often seem like that to everyone (it looks like including you, and I've seen you around the boards enough, even long before I became a designer and was just a fellow forumite reading your posts on rules threads, to know that you are an extremely knowledgable and experienced poster on the forums, so if it confuses even you, it's going to confuse newcomers who are less familiar with the boards than you are). Thus, it was quite intentional that I posted on the other thread in off-topic where I've made more disclaimers about everything being unofficial; the part that made it confusing again was TOZ linking that back here (I don't blame him; I didn't tell him not to, even though I was kind of worried he would when I initially replied to him, and I almost didn't reply to him at all due to predicting this set of responses, so I can't say I was blindsided that this series of responses would happen, just overly hopeful it wouldn't and not wanting to preemptively make that restriction on my AMA thread until I tried it once and saw what happened).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just another lesson learned for me. :)
Nah, it's all on me; I should have expected this crossposting and misunderstanding would occur. Sorry to both of you guys (And also NN959, who is an interesting guy to post with, even if I don't happen to agree with him this time that his interpretation of the FAQ is high priority for a follow-up FAQ) for fostering confusion.
In fact, I don't have the power to issue official clarifications; only the Pathfinder Design Team forum account does, but posts about the rules in these threads often seem like that to everyone (it looks like including you, and I've seen you around the boards enough, even long before I became a designer and was just a fellow forumite reading your posts on rules threads, to know that you are an extremely knowledgable and experienced poster on the forums, so if it confuses even you, it's going to confuse newcomers who are less familiar with the boards than you are). Thus, it was quite intentional that I posted on the other thread in off-topic where I've made more disclaimers about everything being unofficial; the part that made it confusing again was TOZ linking that back here (I don't blame him; I didn't tell him not to, even though I was kind of worried he would when I initially replied to him, and I almost didn't reply to him at all due to predicting this set of responses, so I can't say I was blindsided that this series of responses would happen, just overly hopeful it wouldn't and not wanting to preemptively make that restriction on my AMA thread until I tried it once and saw what happened).
I'm actually not really confused on the subject. I understand that posts by any DEV are not cannon, save those specifically posted by the PDT - that's why that one account exists, and why it's hardly ever used.
That said, when there is confusion about how a rule works and somebody comes to the forums and finds an answer by, oh, say, this grumpy old Tarrasque for example, they might use it or they might ignore it. But when they see an answer, even an unofficial one, by a Paizo staff member, especially one with "Developer" in his title, they are far, far more inclined to accept that this answer is the right answer. And while it may not be official, it usually does settle the confusion about that rule.
On that note, I wish you guys would do that a whole lot more. A ton more.
Sure, then you run the risk of a developer or other staff member posting about how he thinks something works but he gets it wrong. Oops, forgot about that one conflicting rule so now my answer was wrong. Therefore I'm changing my answer. We posters do that all the time and eventually get to the bottom of things (usually, though sometimes the bottom of some things is just an endless rabbit hole - that's where the PDT could be the most helpful).
I don't think it would hurt Paizo if staff members did the same thing. Discussed rules on the forums, even if initial posts are wrong (or half-informed). At the end of the discussion, good answers could be had by all. And then those answers could be used as the source for future FAQs or errata.
Nobody would seriously fault or flog you for an occasional misguided answer if it led to a good discussion with a better answer. Sure, you'd get some sniping from the peanut gallery, but you gotta have thicker skins than that, right?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In fact, I don't have the power to issue official clarifications; only the Pathfinder Design Team forum account does, but posts about the rules in these threads often seem like that to everyone (it looks like including you, and I've seen you around the boards enough, even long before I became a designer and was just a fellow forumite reading your posts on rules threads, to know that you are an extremely knowledgable and experienced poster on the forums, so if it confuses even you, it's going to confuse newcomers who are less familiar with the boards than you are). Thus, it was quite intentional that I posted on the other thread in off-topic where I've made more disclaimers about everything being unofficial; the part that made it confusing again was TOZ linking that back here (I don't blame him; I didn't tell him not to, even though I was kind of worried he would when I initially replied to him, and I almost didn't reply to him at all due to predicting this set of responses, so I can't say I was blindsided that this series of responses would happen, just overly hopeful it wouldn't and not wanting to preemptively make that restriction on my AMA thread until I tried it once and saw what happened).I'm actually not really confused on the subject. I understand that posts by any DEV are not cannon, save those specifically posted by the PDT - that's why that one account exists, and why it's hardly ever used.
That said, when there is confusion about how a rule works and somebody comes to the forums and finds an answer by, oh, say, this grumpy old Tarrasque for example, they might use it or they might ignore it. But when they see an answer, even an unofficial one, by a Paizo staff member, especially one with "Developer" in his title, they are far, far more inclined to accept that this answer is the right answer. And while it may not be official, it usually does settle the confusion about that rule.
On that note, I wish you guys would do that a whole lot more. A ton more....
Incidentally, there is still some confusion on the matter in your post above; in fact, the "Designer" title (my title above next to my name) is the one you're looking for to find someone on the PDT (this is backwards from software companies where the developers do the hard coding of the game engine). It's extremely common and leads to a fair amount of confusion on the boards.
As to answering rules questions off the cuff, I actually do so (I think I'm the only PDT member who does), but as an exception to that, I determined based on how things shook out that I will not do so on a matter that we have FAQed. Quite contrary to your expectation (and mine initially btw, which is why I used to do them for the same very valid reasons you put forward, with the same thought process you mention here) that it would help put the matter to rest, I discovered time and again that it only serves to add fire to a debate. I'm not entirely sure why, though one guess is that it adds an air of legitimacy/validation to the debate and/or is like a positive reinforcement that debate leads to engagement? Anyway, that guess is one reason why I'm more likely to jump into cordial figure-things-out threads with an off-the-cuff answer, since I happen to like those a good deal and would rather reinforce more of those to arise.
Rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty.
That's what I'm hearing. I don't care about this particular FAQ, but the last half-dozen posts are bumming me out pretty badly. What it breaks down to, Mark, is that there is a tranformative moment when FAQ clarifications go South and bum you out. It's the moment when half of the people in the debate get upset because they've been told the rules officially don't work the way they interpret them. As long as there's still and angle, as long as there's "maybe the FAQ means something else", it's Not Your Fault that people are upset.
Still.
While I absolutely respect your right to not post when it bums you out, it's still the right thing to do. If you were in on a Paizo discussion/debate/R&D session on a FAQ and know what was intended to be conveyed, it's awesome of you to share that knowledge. Even if it upsets people. Even if it's me.
It's not your duty to not upset us. It's our duty to not get upset like 2-year-olds because we didn't get our way.
It sounds like we've broken a Dev^H^H^HDesigner. And that sucks.
Could you post as Rogue Eidolon, to make your unofficial status clear?
I also do that sometimes when I post in other threads. Based on experience, it won't help in the particular situation of FAQ follow-ups (in fact it's in some ways even worse) because confusion is not the only reason not to do them. What you'll see next is that (to use butter-side up and butter-side down as an example to illustrate) that if I post butter-side up as Rogue Eidolon, Yooks will use this to flare up butter-side up stance, saying that this definitively proves BSU, while Zooks will point out that I chose to post as Rogue Eidolon, thus either proving BSD or at least weakening BSU because otherwise I would have posted as Mark Seifter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Could you post as Rogue Eidolon, to make your unofficial status clear?I also do that sometimes when I post in other threads. Based on experience, it won't help in the particular situation of FAQ follow-ups (in fact it's in some ways even worse) because confusion is not the only reason not to do them. What you'll see next is that (to use butter-side up and butter-side down as an example to illustrate) that if I post butter-side up as Rogue Eidolon, Yooks will use this to flare up butter-side up stance, saying that this definitively proves BSU, while Zooks will point out that I chose to post as Rogue Eidolon, thus either proving BSD or at least weakening BSU because otherwise I would have posted as Mark Seifter.
Obviously that is not true or you would have posted it as Mark Seifter!
Rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty.
That's what I'm hearing. I don't care about this particular FAQ, but the last half-dozen posts are bumming me out pretty badly. What it breaks down to, Mark, is that there is a tranformative moment when FAQ clarifications go South and bum you out. It's the moment when half of the people in the debate get upset because they've been told the rules officially don't work the way they interpret them. As long as there's still and angle, as long as there's "maybe the FAQ means something else", it's Not Your Fault that people are upset.
Still.
While I absolutely respect your right to not post when it bums you out, it's still the right thing to do. If you were in on a Paizo discussion/debate/R&D session on a FAQ and know what was intended to be conveyed, it's awesome of you to share that knowledge. Even if it upsets people. Even if it's me.
It's not your duty to not upset us. It's our duty to not get upset like 2-year-olds because we didn't get our way.
It sounds like we've broken a Dev^H^H^HDesigner. And that sucks.
I do know that some people will be upset guaranteed when we do a highly-requested FAQ because you guys are smart people with strong opinions and significant skill with the game, so it usually won't make it to a lot of FAQ clicks if there isn't some legitimate question that could allow it to go either way, thus meaning that smart people who made legitimate points in expressing their strongly-held view are going to be on the other side of it no matter what we say. It comes with the territory. Honestly, I'm also pretty strongly on the side of do what works best for your game, in that regard, regardless of how we FAQ it.
However, in terms of follow-ups, it isn't about making people upset (if I was worried about that, I wouldn't push for FAQs as much), it's about extending the vitriol and rage of a thread that already had its answer (which I suppose is related to people being upset but isn't 1 for 1 the same)
Fair enough. I was mostly trying to give you positive feedback. Sounds like you're probably okay. Step away from the ledge, man.
Fair enough. I was mostly trying to give you positive feedback. Sounds like you're probably okay. Step away from the ledge, man.
No worries! I'm not on a ledge about never posting again on the rules forums or anything like that, just attempting to explain why I came to the conclusion I did about posting follow-ups on FAQs.
I am also at a loss for how you can make that claim with any certainty? What convinces you that follow ups don't help? People will always complain, that doesn't mean you aren't helping.
Basically, I used to do it earlier on when I was newer at the job, and after repeated negative examples, I started to wonder whether the flare-ups would have happened anyway or whether my posts were influencing it. Thus, I started experimentally doing it sometimes but not others (without mentioning this to anyone so as to avoid a Hawthorne effect), and I compared statistics based on my qualitative "grar" scale. While not fully scientifically rigorous, my results (that FAQ threads are negatively impacted by my clarifications after the FAQ) were enough for me to conclude not to do so.
EDIT: Lest it seem odd that I am posting here in a FAQ thread after pointing out why I don't post FAQ follow-ups, I also found that meta-discussions like this one tended to be positive or neutral (slightly positive, but not statistically significant).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am also at a loss for how you can make that claim with any certainty? What convinces you that follow ups don't help? People will always complain, that doesn't mean you aren't helping.Basically, I used to do it earlier on when I was newer at the job, and after repeated negative examples, I started to wonder whether the flare-ups would have happened anyway or whether my posts were influencing it. Thus, I started experimentally doing it sometimes but not others (without mentioning this to anyone so as to avoid a Hawthorne effect), and I compared statistics based on my qualitative "grar" scale. While not fully scientifically rigorous, my results (that FAQ threads are negatively impacted by my clarifications after the FAQ) were enough for me to conclude not to do so.
EDIT: Lest it seem odd that I am posting here in a FAQ thread after pointing out why I don't post FAQ follow-ups, I also found that meta-discussions like this one tended to be positive or neutral (slightly positive, but not statistically significant).
Its almost like you went to MIT and know the scientific method or something! :D
I feel that "Grar" is increased when the ruling doesn't make much sense or isn't clear as to why. Like some have pointed out, the wording of other abilities say the same thing, "You can only do X" now we don't know if they use this limited ruling or the normal open ruling. Similar to FoB for SF and Kineticist, SF doesn't get lv=BAB but Kineticist was supposed to/does get Lv=bab. The answer for SF now causes confusion for other classes, and I expect that's why there'd be more Grar than in answers that are clear and explained for how they work in other/similar areas.
Perhaps we are talking about two different things. I'm trying to convey that when you, or anyone on the PDT who follows-up to clear up confusion it helps people. Knowing, for instance, that this FAQ explicitly means you also cannot exchange a move action for a free action would be helpful.
Your response seems to be that no one is helped by this because after you post, there is a flare-up in grar. I guess I don't understand how the latter disproves the former?
I confess, I don't work in an industry where I am affected by posts. But I hope I am not naive in believing that random people who react negatively to my attempting to provide assistance to others would not dissuade me from doing something that I knew was intended to help people. Grant it, I understand that you don't have time to answer every single question, or perhaps even half of them. But, I'll take what I can get. :)
Whereas I know that the FAQ can help lots of people, so it's worth that fact that it hurts the feelings of people who took another stance and were emotionally invested, we can't really gather data on how follow-up posts affect people aside from watching the forums, both the threads where I post them and any time they are cross-posted/linked. This methodology doesn't catch everything, then, but I have reason to suspect based on my own use of the forums before working here and based on talking to other gamers that people who aren't active on the forums rarely see such buried-in-a-controversial-thread-designer-posts, except when cross-posted or linked (and see below). The impact on the thread itself is what I've measured already, and in terms of cross-posts, cross-posts increase the chance of the post being stated as official (right before the cross-poster links the post) by a startlingly high margin (so much so that cross-posts of even freelancers or others who don't work here are often labeled as being official) so they don't appear to be a positive side-effect.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mark, is it fair to ask if it's possible to include examples when a significant FAQ is issued, similar to what was done with the Darkness/Light clarification? I found the examples in that clarification extremely helpful, and that they made the rules easier to understand.
It might be that it's nearly three am here, but did the last thirty or so posts actually ANSWER any questions regarding the nausea condition?
Like spells, we treat conditions in our games as they are written.
The fly spell doesn't make you breath water, and being nauseated prevents every action except move...
Is that still correct?
|
Mark:
I'm personally rather unhappy with this FAQ because it feels like an overly narrow reading of the original text; like the FAQ is just quoting the text right back in our faces when our complaint was that the text didn't quite make sense. It creates a number of very strange situations, like being unable to drop items (we don't have a rule for converting free to move actions) or to drop to the ground yourself.
So when you issue a "strange" FAQ like that, we really want to hear the reasoning behind it, not just a repetition of the original text. If there's a good explanation, that might make it go down easier.
It's happened before that an FAQ was issues and the PDT eventually reversed its position because it turned out to be a bad ruling. The example I can remember was that for a while there was a thing about you gettting at most 3 free actions per round, until it was pointed out that reloading a bow for an iterative attack is also a free action.
What I'm getting at is that while post-op discussion of an FAQ can be rather painful, but it can also reveal flaws in the ruling. It won't always satisfy everyone, but deafening silence isn't the answer either.
It might be that it's nearly three am here, but did the last thirty or so posts actually ANSWER any questions regarding the nausea condition?
Like spells, we treat conditions in our games as they are written.
The fly spell doesn't make you breath water, and being nauseated prevents every action except move...
Is that still correct?
The FAQ already answered the nausea question. You get a move, and only a move - no free, or swift actions.
|
Haven't read the full debate... But just based on real world experience, I find I can often barely move when nauseated. Other times I can move quite quickly (equivalent in-game of a single 30 foot move) to the bathroom, but then am unable to move again for several minutes. Picking things up or concentrating on anything more complicated then "blarg" is nigh impossible. Talking? Forget about it until I'm done dry heaving (which is typically a minute or two after the projectile vomiting ends temporarily).
So I can accept a GM ruling "no, you can't offer to sell a healing potion to the other player because you're nauseated".
Ruling you can't drop something though? That's a head scratcher.
So the faq needs to be fixed right, because you can obviously drop your weapon while nauseated, and the faq prevents that
Nah, just quietly ignore it. You won't get into trouble. Probably not even in PFS.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The amount of effort required to force Paizo into changing the FAQ would be disproportionate to the benefit gained.
To me, "Nauseated people can sheathe swords but not drop them" is in the same category as "Dead people can still take actions because nothing says they can't" - something to ignore.
The spirit of the FAQ, I guess, is that you can't do things like use 'Lay On Hands' as a Swift action while nauseated. Which sucks for Paladins, but they have good Fortitude saves, so they'll probably be OK.
Got it.
So on a failed FORT save, instead of killing a character, a nice GM can have that spell/poison instead inflict Nausea.
Nice GM.
Character doesn't die, and is still allowed to take move actions.
Better than being dead. Right?
I mean, it could have been worse than limiting actions for a duration...