The general rule cited above states that when you are restricted to taking only a single standard or a single move action, you can still take swift or free actions as normal.
Being nauseated restricts you to only a single move action.
Specific overrules general is a principle to apply when two rules disagree, but I don't actually see where the second rule is supposed to be in disagreement with the first, much less specifically overrule it. The second rule merely provides one of the circumstances to which the first rule applies.
Unless we're talking about the certain types of free and swift actions that nauseated does specifically address - e.g. spellcasting - in which case yes, the specific nausea rules about those types of free or swift actions would overrule the general allowance of free and swift actions.
In the general case of being limited to a Standard or Move Action, you can take Swift, Free, and Immediate Actions as normal, and you're correct.
But, "only" is a much more limiting factor when it comes to the Nauseated condition.
Even reading this closely there is still no conflict, because the general case does not cover being limited to a standard or move action, it covers being limited to "only" such. The general rule says that it applies to cases with the exact wording as Nauseated uses.
The Nauseated wording featuring "only" therefore does not make it much (or any) more limiting than the general rule's identical use of "only."
Really, whoever wrote this set of rules deserves a pat on the back for foreseeing and avoiding this particular question by keeping their rules wording tight and consistent across multiple parts of the book.
Since it says, "Nauseated creatures are unable to attack, cast spells, concentrate on spells, or do anything else requiring attention" I don't think anyone sensible would demand all free & swift actions be permitted.
But it would be nice if paladins with the ability to heal themselves of the nauseated condition as a swift action could actually use that ability.
|
I admit, I'm not entirely sure why the thread is still going now that it's been shown that the rules permit free (and swift) actions while nauseated.People are clearly hoping for more stories about my old drunk Russian co-worker.
Or perhaps they are interested in more of my experimentation into the world of ingesting bodily function-inducing chemicals and their effects on our physical capabilities during the aftermath.
We will never know...
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
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).
As per the posts above, for the last few months my local PFS tables have been interpreting Nauseated as being a type of Restricted Action because the wording of the bold highlighted parts match so well. Thus, as per the italicized part, we've been allowing free & swift actions with move actions when Nauseated. We haven't run into any unexpected issues.
They're not different things. Nauseated is a type of Restricted Activity. (Probably.)
Maintain a bardic performance?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maintain a bardic performance?
Do you really expect to be getting +2 to attack and damage from your gnomish friend shouting "HYURGHLBLUGH"?
Maintain a bardic performance?Do you really expect to be getting +2 to attack and damage from your gnomish friend shouting "HYURGHLBLUGH"?
I don't know.
The rules clearly aren't clear hence I asked in the appropriate thread?
A GM who wasn't bound by RAW might disallow singing but permit strumming.
A seventh level bard can start a new performance as a move action, if free actions to maintain an existing performance aren't allowed (which is the main subject being debated).
However, I think bardic performance while nauseated is against RAI (since you can't do "anything else requiring attention").
They're not different things. Nauseated is a type of Restricted Activity. (Probably.)
And when that type of Restricted Activity adds clauses that are different from the otherwise stated subject matter, it becomes its own specific level of restriction, and then, as I stated previously, supersedes the language present in the Restricted Activity paragraph.
After all, if Restricted Activity is the general term, and Nauseated is a specific condition that would fall under the general term, the wording of the specific condition trumps the general term. Or to further simplify the rule: Specific Trumps General.
I would like to point out that The Staggered condition has the same repercussions as the Restricted Activity entry, and also falls under the general term.
Now I'm off to create a character that makes Paladins useless by causing the Nauseated condition 24/7.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They're not different things. Nauseated is a type of Restricted Activity. (Probably.)And when that type of Restricted Activity adds clauses that are different from the otherwise stated subject matter, it becomes its own specific level of restriction, and then, as I stated previously, supersedes the language present in the Restricted Activity paragraph.
After all, if Restricted Activity is the general term, and Nauseated is a specific condition that would fall under the general term, the wording of the specific condition trumps the general term. Or to further simplify the rule: Specific Trumps General.
I would like to point out that The Staggered condition has the same repercussions as the Restricted Activity entry, and also falls under the general term.
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.
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.
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).
The question comes down to why the Staggered condition contains the line "A staggered creature can still take free, swift and immediate actions" but the Nauseated condition does not (or a similar line specifically preventing free/swift/immediate actions). Were they intentionally writing the Nauseated condition to be a more restrictive version of a Restricted Activity and prevent free/swift actions? Or is it just an editing oversight, and the "single move actions" part of Nauseated is pointing back to the (unparenthesized) part of Restricted Activities? Without further clarification from Paizo staff, BOTH interpretations are EQUALLY valid.
I've already posted above why a condition that allows move actions but prevents free actions is self-contradictory. I've noted above the paradox of personal-only swift actions specifically designed to remove a condition that prevents taking swift actions. I've commented above that it's impossible to cease concentrating on a spell if free actions are disallowed. I really don't need to go over all that again.
But I thought that this Combat page and this Conditions page from a v3.5 d20 SRD website was interesting background material. The combat actions section and the Nauseated entry are nearly identical to the PRD, but you can see places where they were slightly edited (adding swift actions to Restricted Activities, etc.). But the Staggered condition has the line in question added between the SRD & the PRD. Obviously, someone had this same argument about the Staggered condition in v3.5 (i.e. can a Paladin Lay-on-Hands himself when Staggered? Can a Barbarian Rage while Staggered?). And when Paizo published Pathfinder, they clarified Staggered.
_
It doesn't really resolve the disagreement. The v3.5 SRD could be interpreted as proof that Nauseated is intended to prevent free/swift actions (since Staggered was modified and Nauseated wasn't) or it could be interpreted as proof that the editors forgot to update Nauseated (since Staggered was modified and Nauseated wasn't). Catch-22.
As I said, my group has discussed this ad nauseam, and we decided that while both interpretations are valid until Paizo chooses to make a ruling one way or the other, the interpretation that Nauseated allows free/swift actions is unburdened by the crazy contradictions and paradoxes that the other interpretation creates.
|
Restricted Activity is all about not having enough time to get all your actions in. Usually, a rounds worth of actions is either standard + move, move + move, or full-round. But swift/free actions don't impact that in any way.
Restricted Activity is caused by the surprise round (because you don't have a whole round to do your stuff), being under the influence of a slow spell (you have enough time but you're moving slowly so can't get as much done), and the like.
Restricted Activity doesn't impact the kinds of things you are able to do, outside the time it takes to do them.
Nauseated is a different kettle of rotten fish. The things you can do are not limited because of lack of time, but by your inability to take any action that requires you to do anything requiring attention, because all your attention is occupied by the overwhelming feeling of nausea. Like the condition says, 'the only action such a character can take is a single move actions per turn'.
Free and Swift actions are not prevented by Restricted Activity because these actions don't take any appreciable time, and the lack of time is what is restricting your activities. But free and swift actions are prevented by Nauseated because of your inability to do anything requiring attention, except for a single move action.
Swift actions take less time than move actions, but are more complex; that's why you can't trade in your move action for another swift. Swift actions are usually spells or SLAs, and the kind of attention needed to use them is prevented by the Nauseated condition.
As for it being a free action to stop concentrating on a spell, it's a free action to choose to stop concentrating on a spell, or to choose to drop a held item or to choose to drop prone, etc. All of those things can happen to you without you choosing it though, and when they do it doesn't require you to expend a free action!
The spell lasts as long as you concentrate on it. Concentrating to maintain a spell is a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Anything that could break your concentration when casting a spell can also break your concentration while you're maintaining one, causing the spell to end.
If you fail to use a standard action to maintain a spell with a duration of 'concentration', that spell ends at the end of your turn. You don't have to use a free action in this case.
You could ring the phone company to end your contract with them and your phone will stop working, but if you fail to pay your bill then your phone will stop working without you having to call them. If you fail to expend that standard action by the end of your turn, the spell will end without you having to expend a free action to end it.
Any other questions?
|
|
Restricted Activity is all about not having enough time to get all your actions in. Usually, a rounds worth of actions is either standard + move, move + move, or full-round. But swift/free actions don't impact that in any way.
Restricted Activity is caused by the surprise round (because you don't have a whole round to do your stuff), being under the influence of a slow spell (you have enough time but you're moving slowly so can't get as much done), and the like.
Restricted Activity doesn't impact the kinds of things you are able to do, outside the time it takes to do them.
While a reasonable interpretation, Restricted Activity doesn't actually say that an activity becomes restricted solely because of time constraints: "In some situations, you may be unable to take a full round's worth of actions." What's causing the restriction isn't specified. For example, you actions could be restricted because you're at exactly zero hit points (staggered). And - separate from weather you agree that the RAW Nauseated Condition falls under the RAW Restricted Activity - IRL, "experiencing stomach distress" does restrict your activities.
Nauseated is a different kettle of rotten fish. The things you can do are not limited because of lack of time, but by your inability to take any action that requires you to do anything requiring attention, because all your attention is occupied by the overwhelming feeling of nausea. Like the condition says, 'the only action such a character can take is a single move actions per turn'.
As stated, a perfectly grammatically correct reading of the sentence. As stated, my initial understanding of that sentence. As stated, not the only correct reading: it is also perfectly grammatically correct to deduce that the Nauseated Condition is a Restricted Activity.
Free and Swift actions are not prevented by Restricted Activity because these actions don't take any appreciable time, and the lack of time is what is restricting your activities. But free and swift actions are prevented by Nauseated because of your inability to do anything requiring attention, except for a single move action.
Swift actions take less time than move actions, but are more complex; that's why you can't trade in your move action for another swift. Swift actions are usually spells or SLAs, and the kind of attention needed to use them is prevented by the Nauseated condition.
Logic based on three assumptions: (1) Restricted Activities are time limited, (2) Free Actions require more attention than Move Actions & (3) Swift Actions - other than those specifically prevented by the Nauseated condition [i]"unable to attack, cast spells, concentrate on spells…" - require more attention than Move Actions.
As stated, (1) assumes facts not in evidence. As stated, assuming (2&3) are true create several paradoxes and contradictions that assuming they are false does not. PFS GMs are supposed to use common sense; it says that dropping a sword does NOT take more concentration than picking up a sword or sheathing a sword. Falling over does NOT take more concentration than standing up or moving 30' or or climbing 10' on a rope or jumping over a 10' chasm or swimming 10'. Etc, etc, etc. Dead horse.
_
Again, it's not a matter of right vs. wrong. Both readings are correct. My PFS group has simply decided that barring clarification from Paizo, disallowing free/swift while nauseated creates more problems than assuming the reverse.
|
|
Again, it's not a matter of right vs. wrong. Both readings are correct. My PFS group has simply decided that barring clarification from Paizo, disallowing free/swift while nauseated creates more problems than assuming the reverse.
The conditions in the game are not merely game constructs without context; each condition is a game mechanic intending to replicate things happening to the creatures in the game.
My PC is lying down. Surely that makes it harder for the arrows to hit him?
Your PC has just been knocked on the head. Surely it will take a moment before he can get his wits together?
Your PC is one point away from unconsciousness. Surely that's going to affect what he can do?
Restricted Activity isn't just a meaningless phrase which triggers game modifiers; those game modifiers are intended to represent in the game the effect of not being able to do all the stuff you can usually do in a round, either because the round is too short or that you are moving too slowly to do the same amount of stuff in a round that you could if you weren't slowed or on zero HP.
Nauseated is intended to model in game mechanics the effects of an overwhelming feeling of nausea. How they've modeled it is to say that you can't take any game actions, except for a single move action. It's not modeling the same thing as Restricted Activity, and there is no game mechanic that suggests that Nausea is a sub-set of Restricted Activity, just because both conditions affect the actions you can take.
It may be that Nauseated should allow free actions, at least one's that don't require attention, or at least as much attention as moving. Swift actions, which are invariably spells or SLAs, require too much attention.
While your perspective may seem a logical interpretation of the words, it is devoid of the context that the conditions exist for, modeling real stuff in game terms. Like, what does each condition mean? Once we do that, and we should, then we'll realise that they are different things and the mechanics of one have no effect on the mechanics of the other.
They each do exactly what they say they do; no more, no less.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not modeling the same thing as Restricted Activity, and there is no game mechanic that suggests that Nausea is a sub-set of Restricted Activity, just because both conditions affect the actions you can take.
I'm going to take this selection as a fine point of why Nauseated is its own specific level of restricted activity. Even if you take them to be similar subjects, Nauseated has its own, specific levels of restriction, which supersede the general terminology given for any Restricted Activity.
I mean, if Nauseated and Staggered were to function as ultimately the same thing, why make the distinction of two separate conditions, or leave certain things out of one, but not the other? Because one is a subset of the Sickened condition and if one is immune to the Sickened condition, they're immune to the Nauseated condition too? That's a stretch to say the least, it's like saying if I'm immune to being Staggered, I'm immune to Paralysis too.
|
|
Restricted Activity isn't just a meaningless phrase which triggers game modifiers; those game modifiers are intended to represent in the game the effect of not being able to do all the stuff you can usually do in a round, either because the round is too short or that you are moving too slowly to do the same amount of stuff in a round that you could if you weren't slowed or on zero HP.
Correct: Restricted Activity is a specific type of action listed in the Action Types section of the Combat chapter. However, it does not specify what does and does not cause an activity to become restricted.
Nauseated is intended to model in game mechanics the effects of an overwhelming feeling of nausea.
Nauseated states "stomach distress". It does not specify overwhelming, vomit, diarrhea, cramps, etc.
there is no game mechanic that suggests that Nausea is a sub-set of Restricted Activity, just because both conditions affect the actions you can take.
That logic is circular: there is also no game mechanic to suggest Nauseated is NOT a restricted activity. And Nauseated and Restricted Activity use identical wording (bolded above).
_Again, both interpretations are valid. The logic and reasoning are identical. One creates paradoxes, the other does not.
|
|
I mean, if Nauseated and Staggered were to function as ultimately the same thing,
They are not the same. Staggered allows Standard Actions, Nauseated does not. Staggered allows spellcasting and concentration, Nauseated does not.
And some argue that Staggered allows you to fall down, while Nauseated does not.
However, both allow you to stand up.
Or to further simplify the rule: Specific Trumps General.
The first rule says that when you are restricted to taking only a move action, you can also take free and swift actions.
The second rule says that when you are Nauseated, the condition restricts you to taking only a move action.
The rules don't disagree with each other, (because both use the same language, "only") so there's no need for one of them to trump the other. The second is simply providing one of the circumstances to which the first applies.
In the general case of being limited to a Standard or Move Action, you can take Swift, Free, and Immediate Actions as normal, and you're correct.
But, "only" is a much more limiting factor when it comes to the Nauseated condition.
Earlier you based your argument on the idea that Nauseated's use of "only" made it much more limiting than the other entry. But we've subsequently noticed that the other entry uses identical wording, "only," as well.
I can't see how you can hold the same position in the face of losing the wording difference that you earlier described your argument as hinging on. Shouldn't a change in evidence like this cause re-evaluation?
Excellent point! Immunity to Restricted Activity would not make you immune to Nauseated, or vice versa.
I'm growing ever more skeptical. Restricted Activity is not anything one could be immune to. It's a part of the combat rules that are used to adjudicate conditions and abilities, it's not a condition or ability. You might as well have Immunity to Initiative or Immunity to Actions in Combat. Using a hypothetical 'immunity to restricted activity' to support your point seems nonsensical, because not only doesn't such a thing exist, it couldn't exist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a rules interpretation creates inane possibilities that don't make any sort of sense, then that rules interpretation is incorrect. I don't care how you justify it.
If I can stand up (move action) then it's ridiculous to assume I can't go prone (free action). If your interpretation doesn't account for this, it really has to be assumed that it's wrong.
Also, I spent 8 years in the US Navy. I've had plenty of conversations while vomiting and/or with other people who were vomiting. The conversation was slower, but it still occurred. I'd very much allow Nauseated characters to say 1-2 words per round. Examples:
"oh gods"
"why?"
"here it..."
"help me"
"oh no"
"not again"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or to further simplify the rule: Specific Trumps General.The first rule says that when you are restricted to taking only a move action, you can also take free and swift actions.
The second rule says that when you are Nauseated, the condition restricts you to taking only a move action.
The rules don't disagree with each other, (because both use the same language, "only") so there's no need for one of them to trump the other. The second is simply providing one of the circumstances to which the first applies.
In the general case of being limited to a Standard or Move Action, you can take Swift, Free, and Immediate Actions as normal, and you're correct.
But, "only" is a much more limiting factor when it comes to the Nauseated condition.Earlier you based your argument on the idea that Nauseated's use of "only" made it much more limiting than the other entry. But we've subsequently noticed that the other entry uses identical wording, "only," as well.
I can't see how you can hold the same position in the face of losing the wording difference that you earlier described your argument as hinging on. Shouldn't a change in evidence like this cause re-evaluation?
Except for the detail that Nauseated is the only condition which restricts you to only a move action. That means that the bit in Restricted Activity referencing being limited to move actions only is meaningless. Or to put it another way, the Nauseated condition is the only condition that that section could be referencing.
|
|
Correct: Restricted Activity is a specific type of action listed in the Action Types section of the Combat chapter. However, it does not specify what does and does not cause an activity to become restricted.
Not quite: Restricted Activity isn't a type of action, but a limit on the actions you can take on your turn. Also, it doesn't need to specify things that don't restrict activity, and the things that do restict your activity will say they do.
That logic is circular: there is also no game mechanic to suggest Nauseated is NOT a restricted activity.
I have to say that this is bogus! No condition needs to tell you what it is not! The burden of the RAW is to say what something is, not what it isn't!
The Prone condition doesn't say that it isn't a type of Restricted Activity either. By your logic, since the Prone condition doesn't say either way, it's equally likely to be or not to be a subset of Restricted Activity. The rules don't work that way. They say what they are, not what they are not. The fact that Nauseated doesn"t say that it isn"t Restricted Activity is not evidence that it is, or even that it might be. If it was, it would need to say so. Because it doesn't, then it isn't.
Nauseated and Restricted Activity use identical wording
No they don't. One lets you use a standard or a move, and allows you to take swift and free. The other doesn't allow you to take any action at all, except for a single move action. This is not identical wording! They actually mean different things.
You may believe that the Nauseated condition should allow free actions (though not swift), and I may even agree, but that is not what the rule actually is.
The idea that Nauseated is a subset of Restricted Activity does not come from the rules, but from your own head, because you believe you've noticed a similarly in one of the clauses.
There are no game mechanical effects, so far as I am aware, that tell you you have "Restricted Activity". All we know is that if you are only able take a standard or a move action (but not both) then your activity has been restricted (this based on reading the description of restricted activities).
Therefore, all conditions which limit you to one or the other of those has placed you under redistricted activity. Slowed, staggered, surprise round, and yes, nauseated. Nauseated does have some further restrictions in that those move (and free) actions you do take cannot take concentration, but that is the only additional limitation. As already pointed out, not allowing free actions leads to very silly situations, like being unable to fall prone while nauseated. No, you can't upgrade falling prone to a move action. You cannot trade action types except where the rules explicitly allow it (standard to move). Not that I'd personally object to someone using a move action that normally can be done as a free... but that's not RAW. Or even more interesting "You can stop concentrating on a spell as a free action." So you can't stop concentrating even though nauseated specifically forbids the ability to concentrate on things? (Although to be fair, it takes a standard to concentrate on a spell, so it will make you lose the spell anyway, but suggesting you can't willingly give up the spell is another silly condition of this interpretation).
The staggered condition pointing at that you can still take swift/free actions doesn't tell us anything we don't already know. It is a re-iteration of the restricted activity rules. Despite claims to watching word counts, the rules do in places get restated, this is one of those cases.
|
|
Nauseated does have some further restrictions in that those move (and free) actions you do take cannot take concentration, but that is the only additional limitation
Nauseated creatures cannot take free actions, by the definition of the condition.
Choosing to interpret several conditions as examples of Restricted Activity does not allow you to change the game effects of those conditions to more closely match the description of Restricted Activity.
Choosing to interpret Nauseated as a subset of Restricted Activity does not allow you to take swift or free actions while Nauseated just because Restricted Activity doesn't prevent them; Nauseated does prevent them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nauseated does have some further restrictions in that those move (and free) actions you do take cannot take concentration, but that is the only additional limitationNauseated creatures cannot take free actions, by the definition of the condition.
Choosing to interpret several conditions as examples of Restricted Activity does not allow you to change the game effects of those conditions to more closely match the description of Restricted Activity.
Choosing to interpret Nauseated as a subset of Restricted Activity does not allow you to take swift or free actions while Nauseated just because Restricted Activity doesn't prevent them; Nauseated does prevent them.
Rule 1 says that in a situation, only X is permissible.
Rule 2 says that in situations where only X is permissible, Y and Z are also permissible.
Rule 1 does not, apart from saying that only X is permissible (see Rule 2), specifically prohibit Y and Z, though it does prohibit things that require A.
The purpose of Rule 2 is to clarify what is permissible in situations like Rule 1.
It's pretty straightforward. In the situation given in Rule 1, X, Y, and Z are permissible so long as they do not require A.
Rule 1 = Nauseated rule
Rule 2 = Restricted activity rule
A = concentration
X = move action
Y = swift action
Z = free action
I mean, if Nauseated and Staggered were to function as ultimately the same thing,They are not the same. Staggered allows Standard Actions, Nauseated does not. Staggered allows spellcasting and concentration, Nauseated does not.
And some argue that Staggered allows you to fall down, while Nauseated does not.
However, both allow you to stand up.
Thank you for proving my point. If Staggered follows the same rules for Restricted Activity, and your original claim is that Nauseated follows under the same circumstances, then it's impossible when you compare them, and your stance is "They don't operate the same."
So if they operate on separate frequencies, and those frequencies are spelled out, then trying to cite them as the same (when, in this very post, you say they are not) falls under mutual exclusivism. That is, it cannot be one and the other at the same time. But of course, even if they were both simultaneously, you still can't explain the purposeful difference in wording without Dev/FAQ input, though this also means you can't discount it as being RAW.
I'm telling you, the best "Anti-Paladin" is one that can Nauseate a Paladin 24/7. Because they couldn't Lay on Hands for Mercies, they couldn't cast spells, they are practically helpless at the "Anti-Paladin"'s mercy (or to be more precise, cruelty).
@ Coriat: How about you quote the entire rules before you make that assumption about my case. From the PRD:
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).
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.
Highlighting the Bolded parts, Restricted Activity specifies that you can take only 1 standard or 1 move action (as well as any Swift/Immediate and Free Actions as normal). Nauseated specifies that a Nauseated character can only take a single move action per turn. That means no Standard Action, no Swift Action, no Immediate Action, no Free Action, no Full-Round (or attempts to complete one), none of whatever else is listed in the former section. That's 4 (and a half) different action types that the former allows me to complete that the latter doesn't. That's a fairly substantial difference.
And you're going to say they're the same exact things that fall under the same exact paradigms?
Being immune to Restricted Activity in general is not a thing that I've seen in any statblock, but I'm sure there are creatures immune to being Staggered, Stunned, etc. And my supposition is that being immune to XYZ, even if they are similar to Nauseated, does not give you immunity to Nauseated. Only Apples to Apples here. If you're immune to Sickened, it does not make you immune to Nauseated, the same way a Barbarian's Tireless Rage does not make him immune to Fatigue or Exhaustion, or an immunity to Fear Effects does not make somebody immune to Mind-affecting Effects.
@littlehewy: You're forgetting that Rule 2 permits either W or X (W being 'standard action'), something that distincts itself from Rule 1's restrictions. It also specifies being able to take Y and Z actions, whereas Rule 1 does not.
@littlehewy: You're forgetting that Rule 2 permits either W or X (W being 'standard action'), something that distincts itself from Rule 1's restrictions. It also specifies being able to take Y and Z actions, whereas Rule 1 does not.
Rule 2 doesn't permit W or X, but refers to situations where W or X are the only options. However, I can see that we're reading that differently: I'm reading it to say that, in situations where only either W or X are allowed (but not necessarily both of them are valid options) ; whereas you're reading it that it refers to situations where either are allowed but only one can be chosen... I hadn't considered your reading of it, which would make it irrelevant to the question at hand. Interesting.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nauseated creatures cannot take free actions, by the definition of the condition.
Choosing to interpret several conditions as examples of Restricted Activity does not allow you to change the game effects of those conditions to more closely match the description of Restricted Activity.
Choosing to interpret Nauseated as a subset of Restricted Activity does not allow you to take swift or free actions while Nauseated just because Restricted Activity doesn't prevent them; Nauseated does prevent them.
Highlighting the Bolded parts, Restricted Activity specifies that you can take only 1 standard or 1 move action (as well as any Swift/Immediate and Free Actions as normal). Nauseated specifies that a Nauseated character can only take a single move action per turn. That means no Standard Action, no Swift Action, no Immediate Action, no Free Action, no Full-Round (or attempts to complete one), none of whatever else is listed in the former section. That's 4 (and a half) different action types that the former allows me to complete that the latter doesn't. That's a fairly substantial difference.
And you're going to say they're the same exact things that fall under the same exact paradigms? Sure! While we're at it, let's call Magic Missile and Fireball the same spell, because they're both from the Evocation school, right?
Everyone who keeps repeating this argument is 100% correct. That is a perfectly grammatically correct way to read those two sections you quoted. I'm not entirely sure why people keep repeating it ad nauseam. We really do understand your point.
But English isn't the type of language where words and sentences have just one correct interpretation. Since subway rat was the one who reminded me of that fact about a hundred posts earlier in this thread, I'll let him repeat it here:
You can absolutely take free and swift actions when nauseated!
It's right here in the core rule book.
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).People keep getting bogged down on the word "only". They interpret the word to mean "to the exclusion of all else". But really, the word can designate an upper limit. For example, when your mom said you could only have two cookies, she didn't mean you were disallowed from eating a single cookie, or half a cookie. The word was used as an upper limit. The same is true for this case. You are restricted to not taking more than a single move action (plus free and swift actions as normal).
Of course the nature of free actions taken is still under GM discretion. So, offering to sell a potion to another player while nauseated may be more talking than the GM is willing to allow.
Still not convinced? Look at the text for free actions:
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.Free actions may be done as part of a move action.
The real issue here is whether the action requires attention, and that is purely a GM decision. But as a rule, being nauseated should not prohibit swift or free actions.
So now we have two equally valid, grammatically correct readings of the rules.
_And going back to the very first post of this thread, I once also thought that, by RAW (which is the only type of rules at the PFS table) the "only" in Nauseated meant no free/swift, but upon further research, was confused by the hidden paradoxes this created. The first post was asking for help clarifying why the paradoxes were being created by that rules interpretation; subway rat has provided a RAW-valid alternative that resolves the problems created by my initial understanding of the rules.
Despite subway rat's point being grammatically correct, it doesn't invalidate the other reading. I'm still waiting on Paizo to come down with an official ruling - here in the thread, in the FAQ, in an Errata, etc. When they do make a ruling, as a PFS GM, I'm more than happy to abide by what they say, even if it reintroduces the crazy paradoxes.
In the meantime, my local PFS groups have decided the RAW interpretation that created no crazy paradoxes is the one we'll use. You're free to use your interpretation at your table. I'm sure my PFS group will eventually run across a GM who feels the way you do, and we'll use your interpretation when they're sitting behind the screen.
|
|
I agree that the word "only' could either be an exact amount (no more, no less than two cookies) or an upper limit (no more than two cookies, but you can have fewer than two, or you don't have to have any if you don't want to).
However, applying that to Nauseated results in: you can only take a single move action, which either means:-
• you must take a single move action, no more and no less
OR
• you can take a single move action, but you don't have to if you don't want to
It cannot mean that you can take more actions than a single move action! That is not an acceptable reading of those words.
Further, in a permissive ruleset like PF (where you can't do something unless the rules say you can when it comes to rules that they define), it is not acceptable to point out that Nauseated doesn't say that it isn't Restricted Activity, therefore there's a 50/50 chance that it is!
Some weapons have the Reach quality. It is not acceptable to decide that your non-reach weapon does have Reach after all, on the grounds that the rules don't say that it doesn't have Reach!
In some situations, you may be unable to take a full round's worth of actions.
Restricted Activity (note the capitals) has been treated on this thread as if it were a condition. Even by me. It isn't.
It isn't a condition. It isnt a set of conditions, and Nauseated and the rest are not subsets of it.
It's just a paragraph after the Actions In Combat table telling us that in some situations you might be 'unable to take a full round's worth of actions', and telling us the effects that has on our choice of actions to take.
This is not a limit of what various conditions can do to you! It does not mean that Nauseated is unable to prevent you from taking free actions!
|
|
The general rule cited above states that when you are restricted to taking only a single standard or a single move action, you can still take swift or free actions as normal.
Being nauseated restricts you to only a single move action.
Specific overrules general is a principle to apply when two rules disagree, but I don't actually see where the second rule is supposed to be in disagreement with the first, much less specifically overrule it. The second rule merely provides one of the circumstances to which the first rule applies.
Unless we're talking about the certain types of free and swift actions that nauseated does specifically address - e.g. spellcasting - in which case yes, the specific nausea rules about those types of free or swift actions would overrule the general allowance of free and swift actions.
In the general case of being limited to a Standard or Move Action, you can take Swift, Free, and Immediate Actions as normal, and you're correct.
But, "only" is a much more limiting factor when it comes to the Nauseated condition. When it says "The only action such a character can take is a single move action per turn," the specifics of the Nauseated condition, which say you get the move action, and nothing else because it otherwise breaks this rule, supersedes the general rules given for restricted activity, which say you can take Swift, Free, and Immediate Actions as normal.
That's basically a step-up from, other than the can take a single move action, the Helpless condition.
You are also not subject to the helpless conditions impact on your AC/Dex Modifier, so are not subject to coup de grace attempts, or sneak attacks.
|
|
Up to now, I've been discussing the Nauseated condition as it is, not how it should be.
Or how it was.
Right now, like it or not, in PF Nauseated creatures cannot take free actions. As pointed out, this leads to some absurdities, like being able to stand up but not fall down, able to draw a weapon but not drop it, etc.
If you want to campaign to change the wording of the condition to allow free (but not swift) actions, then I'll support that 100%.
This doesn't mean that I want the condition to say something new. No, I want it to say something old!
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.
No free actions.
Now, compare this:-
Experiencing 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 action per turn, plus free actions (except for casting quickened spells).
So 3.5 solved the absurdities. For some reason, PF lost the line about free actions. This was either deliberate or accidental. I think the latter.
And here's why. I've now seen many, many examples of where PF has cut&paste rules while leaving some part out, without realising how crucial that part proves to be. I get it. Word count is important in a monster like the CRB, and if the editor thinks that the way the rule works is obvious, then he can make the rule briefer because everyone knows how the rule is meant to work.
There is also the problem that the rule examples in 3.5, so helpful in understanding the rule, were left out of the SRD so could not be used. PF should have replaced the examples featuring Tordek the dwarf fighter with Valeros the PF fighter, but they didn't.
Among the many problems this has caused is some PF players believing that 'standing up' constitutes 'movement', disallowing a 5-foot step. Yet if they had kept the 3.5 example, which has Tordek standing up and then taking a 5-foot step as the very example of the rule in question, then there would be no misunderstanding.
Another example is the description in the Spellcraft skill about 'identify a spell being cast'. Some PF players (even dev's themselves!) think that you can use the skill to identify a stilled, silent spell as it is being cast, and even SLAs. This then leads to the idea that still, silent spellcasting can be seen and heard! Absurd! So why is it possible that PF players believe something so absurd? Because when PF cut&paste this rule, they failed to include this vital information:-
Identify a spell as it is being cast. (You must see or hear the spell's verbal or somatic components)
So still, silent spells (and SLAs) cannot be identified, and thus counterspelled, because they have no verbal or somatic components to identify.
So the absurdities of not allowing Nauseated creatures to take free actions can and should be solved by returning to the correct, complete discription of the condition found in 3.5.
On a related note, 3.5 says you can take free actions 'except for quickened spells'. This is because when it was written swift actions hadn't been invented yet. The equivalent was quickened spells. When 3.5 adopted swift actions, quickened spells changed from being a free action (with a limit of one quickened spell per turn) to a swift action (with a limit of one swift action per turn.
Even if free actions are again allowed if the description of Nauseated is corrected, then swift actions will not be allowed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since not allowing free actions leads to idiocy, I think we should interpret it as standard (ambiguous) English rather than formal logic. If you read, "you can only drive at 30mph in this area", that should not be taken to mean you can't walk through the area, turn corners, or breathe.
This interpretation does not lead to idiocy:
They don't need to mention free actions in the nauseated condition because they're free actions. You can take free actions whenever you can take any other action.
You can take swift actions whenever you can take free actions.
|
|
Since not allowing free actions leads to idiocy, I think we should interpret it as standard (ambiguous) English rather than formal logic. If you read, "you can only drive at 30mph in this area", that should not be taken to mean you can't walk through the area, turn corners, or breathe.
This interpretation does not lead to idiocy:
They don't need to mention free actions in the nauseated condition because they're free actions. You can take free actions whenever you can take any other action.
You can take swift actions whenever you can take free actions.
Apart from the objection to swift actions mentioned above, good luck in finding one that doesn't require attention.
Rule 2 doesn't permit W or X, but refers to situations where W or X are the only options. However, I can see that we're reading that differently: I'm reading it to say that, in situations where only either W or X are allowed (but not necessarily both of them are valid options) ; whereas you're reading it that it refers to situations where either are allowed but only one can be chosen... I hadn't considered your reading of it, which would make it irrelevant to the question at hand. Interesting.@littlehewy: You're forgetting that Rule 2 permits either W or X (W being 'standard action'), something that distincts itself from Rule 1's restrictions. It also specifies being able to take Y and Z actions, whereas Rule 1 does not.
Yeah, Darksol, I understand your reading now based on that last post, which I didn't before, thanks.
I can see now that your reading is not strictly incorrect. I do think that I still prefer the one that also seems supportable, and leads to more desirable results
Malachi, running Pathfinder certainly does sometimes rely upon behind-the-scenes 3.5 understandings, when the actual rule got left out or mangled in the Pathfinder version for one reason or another. I think the combat rules do give a solid enough basis to rule this question the way we both would want it to be, though, from the actual text.
|
|
Coriat, although the correct solution (allowing free but disallowing swift) can be arrived at correctly or incorrectly (I ruled X because my horoscope said so), it would be poor form to give the impression that it's okay to ignore the text of a condition due to imagining that one condition is a subset of something that doesn't have the same restrictions.
Even if you happen on the correct solution this time, an incorrect method is likely to lead you to the wrong answer if you try it again.
In this thread, the argument is that because Nauseated doesn't let you take the normal actions, that therefore it is a type of restricted activity and can therefore use those mechanics in place of the harsher mechanics of Nauseated.
By the same logic, Paralyzed creatures cannot act, therefore their actions are restricted, therefore Paralyzed is a subset of restricted activity, and therefore Paralyzed creatures can still take free and swift actions.
This is not the way forward.
Malachi, can you point to a single location in the rules where it says something to the effect of "In this situation your activity is restricted". If not, can you please define, using the rules, when the restricted activity rules would apply?
The paralysis is an inapt comparison. A paralyzed creature still has both its move and standard actions, and any free swift actions it wants, under the following restriction "...but can take purely mental actions."
it would be poor form to give the impression that it's okay to ignore the text of a condition due to imagining that one condition is a subset of something that doesn't have the same restrictions.
In my reading, Nauseated is a case of restricted activity. Sets and subsets are beside the point.