So the faq needs to be fixed right, because you can obviously drop your weapon while nauseated, and the faq prevents thatYou can drop your weapon, speak, and do various other 'free / swift / immediate action' type things while nauseated... you just need to use a move action to do so.
Unfortunately, the rules do not permit this.
You can't substitute a move action for a free or swift action.
If it did, you could have two swift actions a turn, and many things use swift actions to function, so this might upset game balance.
Declaring that dropping a weapon/speaking etc can be performed as 'swift, free or move actions' would fix this.
|
Unfortunately, the rules do not permit this.
They do if you use other move actions that accomplish the same thing.
Or do you rule that you cannot manipulate an item to the ground?
Unfortunately, the rules do not permit this.They do if you use other move actions that accomplish the same thing.
Clarify please?
I suppose if you can sheathe your weapon into air, that would be the same as dropping it... :D
Speaking might be a deliberate choice to limit though, whether you are barfing your guts out or just staggering about clutching your stomach...
*shrugs*
It's funny that this debate is still going.
Clarify please?Unfortunately, the rules do not permit this.They do if you use other move actions that accomplish the same thing.
He means you can use the Move Action to "manipulate an item" which allows you to pick something up or put something down. So while you cannot drop your weapon as a prohibited free action, you can gently set it on the ground as an allowed move action.
Which provokes.
And it's silly.
But it's allowed.
|
You can't substitute a move action for a free or swift action.
Sure you can. No rule against it. Plenty of indication that it is possible.
"An action's type essentially tells you how long the action takes to perform (within the framework of the 6-second combat round) and how movement is treated."
The different action types exist to categorize "how long" the action takes. If you have the amount of time needed to complete a move action available then you perforce also have the amount of time needed to complete a free / swift / immediate action.
"In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn't your turn. Speaking more than a few sentences is generally beyond the limit of a free action."
So... does this mean that it is impossible to speak more than a few sentences? OR that doing so requires a longer action? Personally, I think it has got to be the latter. "In general" speaking is a free action... but sometimes it requires a longer action.
If it did, you could have two swift actions a turn, and many things use swift actions to function, so this might upset game balance.
Nope, only one swift (or immediate) action per turn. Even if you use a move (or standard) action to complete a swift action.
|
Oddly, aiming at a toilet is also an attack against an unattended object, so it's still a standard action. Apparently, when you're nauseated enough to pray at the porcelain altar, you can't...I don't think it would work because deliberately aiming your vomit at a foe's face would be an attack with an improvised weapon, which is definitely a standard action.When one is about to vomit, all you can do is basically try to run to a sink or toilet (unless you don't care about the walls or floors).
Which begs the question: can you hurl in your enemy's face to make him nauseated as well?
:P
(sorry I had to go there, but it *would* be an effective way to shut down an axe attacker for a few seconds! why waste the opportunity? LOL)
Well, this clearly proves that one may take the targeted vomit standard action only during the nauseated condition, which coincidentally also cancels the nauseated condition. Add one or two halfling feats to this, like Juggle Load, and you got a winner here! :P
You can't substitute a move action for a free or swift action.Sure you can. No rule against it. Plenty of indication that it is possible.
"An action's type essentially tells you how long the action takes to perform (within the framework of the 6-second combat round) and how movement is treated."
The different action types exist to categorize "how long" the action takes. If you have the amount of time needed to complete a move action available then you perforce also have the amount of time needed to complete a free / swift / immediate action.
"In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn't your turn. Speaking more than a few sentences is generally beyond the limit of a free action."
So... does this mean that it is impossible to speak more than a few sentences? OR that doing so requires a longer action? Personally, I think it has got to be the latter. "In general" speaking is a free action... but sometimes it requires a longer action.
If it did, you could have two swift actions a turn, and many things use swift actions to function, so this might upset game balance.Nope, only one swift (or immediate) action per turn. Even if you use a move (or standard) action to complete a swift action.
But nauseated prevents use of free and swift actions, so it's irrelevant whether or not you can convert move actions into swift or free...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can't substitute a move action for a free or swift action.Sure you can. No rule against it.
All humans can naturally breathe a 60' cone of fire that does 20d6 fire damage.
Sure you can. No rule against it.
Or, far more reasonably, arguing that you can do anything for which there is "no rule against it" is incorrect - you can only do things that there ARE rules telling you how to do it.
Plenty of indication that it is possible.
"An action's type essentially tells you how long the action takes to perform (within the framework of the 6-second combat round) and how movement is treated."
The different action types exist to categorize "how long" the action takes. If you have the amount of time needed to complete a move action available then you perforce also have the amount of time needed to complete a free / swift / immediate action.
"In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn't your turn. Speaking more than a few sentences is generally beyond the limit of a free action."
So... does this mean that it is impossible to speak more than a few sentences? OR that doing so requires a longer action? Personally, I think it has got to be the latter. "In general" speaking is a free action... but sometimes it requires a longer action.
If it did, you could have two swift actions a turn, and many things use swift actions to function, so this might upset game balance.Nope, only one swift (or immediate) action per turn. Even if you use a move (or standard) action to complete a swift action.
All conjecture and houserules, but you're stating them in a Rules Questions forum.
Here, I'll give you an actual rule:
In a normal round, you can perform a standard action and a move action, or you can perform a full-round action. You can also perform one swift action and one or more free actions. You can always take a move action in place of a standard action.
Note the bolded part. You can take a move action in place of a standard action. That's the only one they allow you to substitute. By implication, that means you cannot substitute any others - if you could freely substitute actions, they would not need to explicitly describe this ONE substitution).
So no, you cannot use your move action to perform a swift action regardless of whether you're nauseated or not.
|
|
You can take a move action in place of a standard action. That's the only one they allow you to substitute. By implication, that means you cannot substitute any others - if you could freely substitute actions, they would not need to explicitly describe this ONE substitution).
Speaking is only a free action "in general"... implying that it is sometimes a different kind of action.
Again, there is no clearly stated rule on this. You are making an assumption that it is not allowed because of your belief that substituting a move action for a standard action is implied to be the only such option. Conversely, I believe it is allowed because the text on action types representing amounts of time and speech sometimes not being possible as a free action implies that other 'substitutions' are possible.
Two different interpretations of the rules. Neither specifically stated to be incorrect.
Bonus... my version makes sense.
You can take a move action in place of a standard action. That's the only one they allow you to substitute. By implication, that means you cannot substitute any others - if you could freely substitute actions, they would not need to explicitly describe this ONE substitution).Speaking is only a free action "in general"... implying that it is sometimes a different kind of action.
Again, there is no clearly stated rule on this. You are making an assumption that it is not allowed because of your belief that substituting a move action for a standard action is implied to be the only such option. Conversely, I believe it is allowed because the text on action types representing amounts of time and speech sometimes not being possible as a free action implies that other 'substitutions' are possible.
Two different interpretations of the rules. Neither specifically stated to be incorrect.
Bonus... my version makes sense.
Speaking IS listed as a free action in the table discussing action types...
Most people allow it while nauseated, but not all, as this thread shows.
Rules don't need to make sense, they just need to work. Does not talking make sense to everyone? Apparently not. But does the rule work? Yes.
I mean, I don't see why the pdt can't admit their mistake? Maybe because it looks bad when you think for a second and you come up with a problem immediately?
I think PDT should get over their embarrassment and fix it to be no swift actions, easy
I think you should get off your high horse and stop whining about a ruling you don't personally like.
I mean, I don't see why the pdt can't admit their mistake? Maybe because it looks bad when you think for a second and you come up with a problem immediately?
I think PDT should get over their embarrassment and fix it to be no swift actions, easy
They don't need to fix it... it already disallows swift actions.
Also standard, full attack, free... and so on.
|
Speaking is normally a free action, if it's only a couple sentences.
Trying to convince the guy about to stab you're buddy to surrender by intimidating him or sweet talking him down is NOT a free action.
Me, I'd say "let the nauseated person speak". But that's their move action. It's dang hard to talk when you're busy vomiting and/or dry heaving.
| 2 people 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.
Personally, I think more FAQs should be answered by alluding to Dr. Seuss.
That's really all I have to add to this.
Carry on.
Speaking is normally a free action, if it's only a couple sentences.
Trying to convince the guy about to stab you're buddy to surrender by intimidating him or sweet talking him down is NOT a free action.
Me, I'd say "let the nauseated person speak". But that's their move action. It's dang hard to talk when you're busy vomiting and/or dry heaving.
I also wouldn't have an issue with allowing someone to speak... despite the fact that is isn't allowed by the rules.
I actually enjoyed the few times my characters were hit with this condition, it's kinda funny imaging them stumbling around the battlefield puking on everything...
Like that episode of Family Guy where they drink Ipecac in the living room... classic.
|
|
Well, this clearly proves that one may take the targeted vomit standard action only during the nauseated condition, which coincidentally also cancels the nauseated condition. Add one or two halfling feats to this, like Juggle Load, and you got a winner here! :POddly, aiming at a toilet is also an attack against an unattended object, so it's still a standard action. Apparently, when you're nauseated enough to pray at the porcelain altar, you can't...I don't think it would work because deliberately aiming your vomit at a foe's face would be an attack with an improvised weapon, which is definitely a standard action.When one is about to vomit, all you can do is basically try to run to a sink or toilet (unless you don't care about the walls or floors).
Which begs the question: can you hurl in your enemy's face to make him nauseated as well?
:P
(sorry I had to go there, but it *would* be an effective way to shut down an axe attacker for a few seconds! why waste the opportunity? LOL)
Gave some serious thought to this idea. And I don't think it'd work. The "aiming" at the toilet involves mostly being doubled over, possibly on your knees with face right above the bowl.
Which doesn't help your nausea much, does it?
If you're standing, the odds of missing increase dramatically. And assuming you did manage to aim at the enemy with your projectile vomit, I'd say that provokes an attack of opportunity since it's extreme close range. The girl from The exorcist we ain't.
So you agree that once nauseated you cannot drop anything? You also can't draw a weapon using quick draw? You can't drop prone?I mean, I don't see why the pdt can't admit their mistake? Maybe because it looks bad when you think for a second and you come up with a problem immediately?
I think PDT should get over their embarrassment and fix it to be no swift actions, easy
I think you should get off your high horse and stop whining about a ruling you don't personally like.
That's clearly and unambiguously what the rules say.
So you agree that once nauseated you cannot drop anything? You also can't draw a weapon using quick draw? You can't drop prone?I mean, I don't see why the pdt can't admit their mistake? Maybe because it looks bad when you think for a second and you come up with a problem immediately?
I think PDT should get over their embarrassment and fix it to be no swift actions, easy
I think you should get off your high horse and stop whining about a ruling you don't personally like.
You can't drop prone?
"Crawling: You can crawl 5 feet as a move action. Crawling incurs attacks of opportunity from any attackers who threaten you at any point of your crawl. A crawling character is considered prone and must take a move action to stand up, provoking an attack of opportunity."
You cannot drop anything?
"Manipulate an Item
Moving or manipulating an item is usually a move action.
This includes retrieving or putting away a stored item, picking up an item, moving a heavy object, and opening a door. Examples of this kind of action, along with whether they incur an attack of opportunity, are given in Table: Actions in Combat."
You also can't draw a weapon using quick draw?
Nope. But you can draw a weapon as a Move Action.
It's a negative status effect. It makes things worse. So how about stop making claims that are untrue. You can do all of those things at a worse action than normal.
|
|
Also, what part of manipulating an item says you can replace actions as other actions? Dropping an item is a free action, which you can no longer do.
What part of it says you can't put an item down as a move action?
Oh also you cannot stop concentrating on a spell, lollll
That's okay, when you fail to spend the standard action concentrating on it, you'll lose it anyway.
Also, what part of manipulating an item says you can replace actions as other actions? Dropping an item is a free action, which you can no longer do.What part of it says you can't put an item down as a move action?
It provokes, so it kinda sucks, since dropping it is easier and more natural and doesn't provoke, so it's weird that we have a rule/FAQ that shows that we can slowly and deliberately and with conscious thought and effort bend over, reach down, and set our sword gently on the ground and then open our hand to let go of it, at peril to our health - but we cannot quickly and naturally open our hand and let it fall safely to the ground.
Either way we must open our hand to let go of it, but we're only allowed to let go of it after we make the decision to set it gently down, then bend over, reach down, set it on the ground, and FINALLY open our hand.
But no, we can't just skip all those early steps and open our hand where we are with less effort and less risk. That's somehow impossible.
Very, very counter-intuitive.
I'd honestly be more okay with this ruling if it said you only get 3 free actions and nothing else over 1 move action and nothing else. Would it suck horribly? Yes, but it would also make sense as a mental image.
Also nauseated does not mean vomiting. Get a tooth pulled and you'll be in a similar condition.
Also, what part of manipulating an item says you can replace actions as other actions? Dropping an item is a free action, which you can no longer do.What part of it says you can't put an item down as a move action?It provokes, so it kinda sucks, since dropping it is easier and more natural and doesn't provoke, so it's weird that we have a rule/FAQ that shows that we can slowly and deliberately and with conscious thought and effort bend over, reach down, and set our sword gently on the ground and then open our hand to let go of it, at peril to our health - but we cannot quickly and naturally open our hand and let it fall safely to the ground.
Either way we must open our hand to let go of it, but we're only allowed to let go of it after we make the decision to set it gently down, then bend over, reach down, set it on the ground, and FINALLY open our hand.
But no, we can't just skip all those early steps and open our hand where we are with less effort and less risk. That's somehow impossible.
Very, very counter-intuitive.
Perhaps, but it isn't a buff, it's a negative status effect.
Could be worse, you could have been KILLED when you failed that Fort save, at least the GM only hit you with something that caused Nausea.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm gonna pop in here real fast because the irony behind all of these statements of characters taking these actions that the naysayers bring up is actually detrimental 99% of the time.
If you're going Prone on an enemy that Nauseated you, that enemy will receive a +4 to hit you in melee. So why the hell would you do that?
If you're going to drop your weapon with an enemy that Nauseated you, he could just as easily pick up that weapon and walk away, leaving you with a back-up weapon that probably sucks and either using it for himself, or selling it for a lot of cash. He could pick it up and beat you in the face with it (because it's better than his weapon). Or you would end up being weaponless when an ally clears the condition from you, meaning you just became worthless through the rest of the encounter, whereas if you just held on to it, you could get back in there and smash faces.
I mean, people are bringing up all of these super-niche-extreme cases of characters doing stuff that is obviously more harmful/detrimental to them and their party than not taking those actions, and use it as justification for this FAQ being "poorly written and enforced," and it makes me scratch my head.
It's like going out of your way to not optimize a character, and then complaining about how weak and poorly created he is. It makes zero sense, and using it as justification for something to be altered or changed is just ridiculous.
Could there be opportunities where these actions may be relevant? Perhaps. If a Ranged Weapon manages to Nauseate you because of laced poison, or you're holding 2 Weapons and need to pick up a McGuffin, then just maybe these actions would be relevant, though to be fair, there are equally-relevant actions to be taken (such as moving behind hard cover, stashing one of your held weapons, or letting a non-Nauseated party-member pick up the McGuffin), and you would just be silly complaining about this anyway.
I prefer to think that Paizo has thought this sort of thing through and decided it would be a non-issue to just rehash the statement, since these super-extreme-niche cases will probably never come up in any sane game. Because let's face it, with the above consequences, no sane player would follow through with those actions unless it really is the best action they can take. But as I've said before, 99% of the time, it isn't.
I'm gonna pop in here real fast because the irony behind all of these statements of characters taking these actions that the naysayers bring up is actually detrimental 99% of the time.
You've completely missed the point.
Nobody is saying "I want to drop my weapon" and nobody is saying "Nausea should force you to drop your weapon".
All we're saying is that the rule makes no sense when a person afflicted with this condition could bend over, reach down, gently set his weapon on the ground, and then open his hand, but it's somehow impossible for him to just open his hand without doing those other three things first.
There is probably NO reason he would want to do either option (unless he's decided to surrender, perhaps), but the point is not about whether you want to do it or whether it's a good idea; the point is about why we have a rule that says you cannot possibly ever do the easy thing as a free action but you can do the much harder thing as a move action.
That is what doesn't make sense, and the fact that it doesn't make sense was the only point we're trying to make.
It provokes, so it kinda sucks, since dropping it is easier and more natural and doesn't provoke, so it's weird that we have a rule/FAQ that shows that we can slowly and deliberately and with conscious thought and effort bend over, reach down, and set our sword gently on the ground and then open our hand to let go of it, at peril to our health - but we cannot quickly and naturally open our hand and let it fall safely to the ground.
Either way we must open our hand to let go of it, but we're only allowed to let go of it after we make the decision to set it gently down, then bend over, reach down, set it on the ground, and FINALLY open our hand.
But no, we can't just skip all those early steps and open our hand where we are with less effort and less risk. That's somehow impossible.
Very, very counter-intuitive.
Perhaps, but it isn't a buff, it's a negative status effect.
Could be worse, you could have been KILLED when you failed that Fort save, at least the GM only hit you with something that caused Nausea.
It could be worse? That's really your argument?
I mean, people are bringing up all of these super-niche-extreme cases of characters doing stuff that is obviously more harmful/detrimental to them and their party than not taking those actions, and use it as justification for this FAQ being "poorly written and enforced," and it makes me scratch my head.
Going prone protects you from missile fire. Dropping a weapon allows you to draw another item.
There was an earlier example:
My answer to stinking cloud used to be:
Free: remove one hand from my 2H weapon
Move: draw Vapors of Easy Breath
Free: drop the glass jar, shattering it. I and other nearby people get a new saving throw against the cloud.
If nobody is wanting to drop their weapon, or is wanting to go prone, then why even bring it up as an argument for the FAQ being bad or poorly written? Creating an argument just for the sake of having an argument is silly here on these forums, unless that is the direct intent of the thread. I can assure you, that isn't the intent here.
If there were relevant rules implications for these subjects, which I debunked by the way, then you would have a point, and it would probably be a sentiment that I share. But I don't, because those rules implications are irrelevant to the FAQ's reassurance.
Unless you're hit with an Insanity spell, you're not going to try to go prone, or drop your weapon in the middle of combat, when you're Nauseated and can't otherwise meaningfully contribute. Neither of those actions, unless you don't have anything better to do, serve the purpose of helping the character survive. That's probably why Paizo gave the go-ahead to just blanket-statement all Free Actions: Because they believed people wouldn't be stupid enough to take an action that's obviously detrimental.
There was an earlier example:
My answer to stinking cloud used to be:
Free: remove one hand from my 2H weapon
Move: draw Vapors of Easy Breath
Free: drop the glass jar, shattering it. I and other nearby people get a new saving throw against the cloud.
Well, that ain't happinin' no more...
Round 1: gently set your 2H weapon on the ground as a provoking move action
Round 2: draw the Vapors of Easy Breath as a move action that might provoke
Round 3: gently set the vapors on the ground as a provoking move action
Round 4: wonder how to break that glass jar as a move action since kicking it or striking it or, well, anything that breaks it is a standard action. Maybe you could have opened it as a move action before setting it down? Hmmmm, better pick it back up as a move action that provokes.
I mean, people are bringing up all of these super-niche-extreme cases of characters doing stuff that is obviously more harmful/detrimental to them and their party than not taking those actions, and use it as justification for this FAQ being "poorly written and enforced," and it makes me scratch my head.Going prone protects you from missile fire. Dropping a weapon allows you to draw another item.
There was an earlier example:
My answer to stinking cloud used to be:
Free: remove one hand from my 2H weapon
Move: draw Vapors of Easy Breath
Free: drop the glass jar, shattering it. I and other nearby people get a new saving throw against the cloud.
Moving behind cover protects you from missile fire, probably even better than going prone if it's hard cover, since that forces them to either go melee, or adjust their position to get a clear line of fire.
That example would also require 3 rounds to work. 1 Move Action would allow you to manipulate the Two-Handed Weapon to only occupy one hand, and not two (since Free Actions are prohibited). The next would allow you to draw the Vapors of Easy Breath. The following one would allow you to open the Vapors of Easy Breath, providing the saving throw.
It still works. But it's not as elegant or as fast as he originally planned it. He'd probably die trying to get that accomplished, truth be told, but it's still certainly doable.
Welcome to the Nauseated condition: How it was meant to be.
There was an earlier example:
My answer to stinking cloud used to be:
Free: remove one hand from my 2H weapon
Move: draw Vapors of Easy Breath
Free: drop the glass jar, shattering it. I and other nearby people get a new saving throw against the cloud.
Well, that ain't happinin' no more...
Round 1: gently set your 2H weapon on the ground as a provoking move action
Round 2: draw the Vapors of Easy Breath as a move action that might provoke
Round 3: gently set the vapors on the ground as a provoking move action
Round 4: wonder how to break that glass jar as a move action since kicking it or striking it or, well, anything that breaks it is a standard action. Maybe you could have opened it as a move action before setting it down? Hmmmm, better pick it back up as a move action that provokes.
More like...
Round One: Move Action to Sheathe Weapon.
Round Two: Move Action to retrieve Vapors of Easy Breath.
Round Three: Move Action to open jar.
I mean you can do it your way. But I'm not seeing how hyperbole helps the situation.
I find when I'm nauseated, falling prone and wailing to the porcelain god is about all I CAN do.
There was an earlier example:
My answer to stinking cloud used to be:
Free: remove one hand from my 2H weapon
Move: draw Vapors of Easy Breath
Free: drop the glass jar, shattering it. I and other nearby people get a new saving throw against the cloud.
Well, that ain't happinin' no more...
Round 1: gently set your 2H weapon on the ground as a provoking move action
Round 2: draw the Vapors of Easy Breath as a move action that might provoke
Round 3: gently set the vapors on the ground as a provoking move action
Round 4: wonder how to break that glass jar as a move action since kicking it or striking it or, well, anything that breaks it is a standard action. Maybe you could have opened it as a move action before setting it down? Hmmmm, better pick it back up as a move action that provokes.More like...
Round One: Move Action to Sheathe Weapon.
Round Two: Move Action to retrieve Vapors of Easy Breath.
Round Three: Move Action to open jar.I mean you can do it your way. But I'm not seeing how hyperbole helps the situation.
The hyperbole was for the sake of comedy. I thought the image of the guy standing there trying to figure out how to break a glass jar was a funny one - especially considering the ironic Nauseated rules that make it impossible for him to just drop it. Then deciding since he can't break it and can't drop it, picking it up to open the lid is the solution. Because, well, that's obviously something you can do when nauseated, unlike, you know, dropping it in the first place.
It was funny to me, anyway.
Side note: I rarely (read: never) sheathe my great axe. Or my longspear. Or my halberd. Or my glaive. Or my guisarme. Or my guisarme-glaive. Or my... oh, so many unsheathable 2H weapons.
It's kind of ambiguous what sort of action you're supposed to use to open the jar in the first place. Would you allow someone to drop an alchemical weapon on an enemy as a free action if you were taller than them?
It's kind of ambiguous what sort of action you're supposed to use to open the jar in the first place. Would you allow someone to drop an alchemical weapon on an enemy as a free action if you were taller than them?
Nope.
Dropping an item, even an alchemical weapon, without any attempt to aim it at a target, is a free action. Dropping the same item deliberately onto a target is a ranged attack every time.
Is that realistic? Maybe, since consciously looking, aiming, sighting, and timing the ranged attack might really take longer and/or more effort than arbitrarily dropping it without doing all that stuff.
Are there cases I could argue for that it's not realistic? Sure, but I don't expect rules to cover every possible edge case argument - that's what GMs are for.
I'd just like to note that you can still 5 foot step while nauseated since that is technically not an action, unless that also changed.