|
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?
Okay.
The Surprise Round: If some but not all of the combatants are aware of their opponents, a surprise round happens before regular rounds begin. In initiative order (highest to lowest), combatants who started the battle aware of their opponents each take a standard or move action during the surprise round. You can also take free actions during the surprise round. If no one or everyone is surprised, no surprise round occurs.
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).
As mentioned, restricted activity is not a condition, so it should not be expected that these situations define themselves in those terms. The only place restricted activity appears is at the end of the explanatiory notes of the Actions In Combat table. Believe it or not, this is to help us understand how to adjudicate those situations where a creature is limited to one action (move or standard; their choice) instead of the normal two actions (both standard and move). There is more to it, hence the explanatiory paragraph.
It does not apply to conditions which do not limit you to a choice between one or the other of standard or move. Nauseated does not give you that choice. It is a different restriction, one which only allows a single move action. This is a different thing.
|
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).
Unrelated to this discussion, but out of curiosity, were did you find that v3.5 definition of Nauseated? Both d20SRD.org and DnDSRD.net are missing that line. I'm wondering why. Maybe theirs is an earlier/later version?
_As mentioned, restricted activity is not a condition, so it should not be expected that these situations define themselves in those terms. The only place restricted activity appears is at the end of the explanatiory notes of the Actions In Combat table. Believe it or not, this is to help us understand how to adjudicate those situations where a creature is limited to one action (move or standard; their choice) instead of the normal two actions (both standard and move). There is more to it, hence the explanatiory paragraph.
Restricted Activity is not a condition, and is also not a explanatory note - it is a type of action. That's why it is listed in the Action Types list with all the other types of actions.
_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.
Since (under normal conditions) you can take more than one Free Action while you are taking only one Move Action, Free Actions are less than a Move Action, not more. Thus, the interpretation of "only" as an upper limit can be interpreted to allow lesser actions - like free actions.
_Apart from the objection to swift actions mentioned above, good luck in finding one that doesn't require attention.This is one of those absurd paradoxes I keep talking about (and mentioned in the earliest posts). Nauseated lets me draw a weapon from a normal sheath, or a normal wrist sheath, or put it away in a sheath, but it won't let me draw from a spring-loaded wrist sheath - which is designed as an improvement over a wrist sheath?
|
|
It is not a different thing, grammatically speaking. A condition that allows only a move action satisfies the:
single standard OR a single move action
designation of a restricted activity by any logical or grammatical interpretation.
Nothing in the rules indicates that a condition much offer you a choice between the two to qualify as a restricted action.
Restricted activity allows me to choose a standard action or a move action. So I can choose a standard action.
Nauseated does not allow me to choose a standard action, restricted activity does, therefore they are different.
So none of those tell you that your activity is restricted. While it is the logical connection to make - it is the same logical connection to make when connecting nauseated as being a restricted activity situation.
Nauseated not allowing a standard doesn't make it not meet the restricted criteria.
Restricted could also be read as "When you are limited to only a standard action your activity is restricted, and you may still take free/swift actions OR when you are limited to only a move action you may still take free/swift."
Or is just that, one OR the other. Does nauseated restrict you to a move action? Yes, so it meets the 'other' condition. Does staggered restrict you to a standard? Yes, so it meets the 'one' condition. (Or it could meet the other, though that is really redundant to say it limits you to a standard or a move, since you could just say it limits you to a standard, and then with your standard opt to take a move action).
Restricted activity doesn't allow you to take a standard - restricted doesn't grant you anything in that regard. Restricted doesn't grant you any actions at all. Restricted says when you can only take a standard, or can only take a move, you can still take free/swift in conjunction with it.
|
|
Unrelated to this discussion, but out of curiosity, were did you find that v3.5 definition of Nauseated?
The 3.5 PHB, in the yellow pages near the back, where all the conditions are defined.
Restricted Activity is not a condition, and is also not a explanatory note - it is a type of action. That's why it is listed in the Action Types list with all the other types of actions.
Nope. It's not a type of action. Those are: full round, standard, move, free, swift and immediate. The restricted activity paragraph tells you how to use the real actions in restricted circumstances.
Since (under normal conditions) you can take more than one Free Action while you are taking only one Move Action, Free Actions are less than a Move Action, not more. Thus, the interpretation of "only" as an upper limit can be interpreted to allow lesser actions - like free actions.
Nope. Nauseated not only restricts the amount of actions you can take, but also the type of actions you can take. The only type of action you can take is a move action. You can only take a single action, and that must be a move action.
If we interpret 'only' to be an upper limit, then it either means you can only take one type of action, or you may not take any number of actions if that number of actions is greater than one.
If the former, then move + free is more types of actions than just move. Therefore, above the limit set by 'only' a move action.
If it means the latter, then move + free is two actions, above the limit set by 'only a single action'.
Unlike 4th ed, which allows you to trade action types at will as long as you trade down, PF does not allow trading of action types except where it specifically says you can: you can trade your standard for a second move action, and you can trade a full attack action for a standard attack action and a move action, after the first but before the second attack. Given that, Nauseated does not allow you to take a single free action instead of a single move action.
No valid reading of the PF version of Nauseated allows you to take free actions. If that bothers you, use the 3.5 version.
Wrist Sheath, spring loaded
This is one of those absurd paradoxes I keep talking about (and mentioned in the earliest posts). Nauseated lets me draw a weapon from a normal sheath, or a normal wrist sheath, or put it away in a sheath, but it won't let me draw from a spring-loaded wrist sheath - which is designed as an improvement over a wrist sheath?
The wrist sheath activation action is at fault. It should be a free action useable once per round, rather than a swift action.
|
|
So none of those tell you that your activity is restricted. While it is the logical connection to make - it is the same logical connection to make when connecting nauseated as being a restricted activity situation.
Nauseated not allowing a standard doesn't make it not meet the restricted criteria.
Restricted could also be read as "When you are limited to only a standard action your activity is restricted, and you may still take free/swift actions OR when you are limited to only a move action you may still take free/swift."
Or is just that, one OR the other. Does nauseated restrict you to a move action? Yes, so it meets the 'other' condition. Does staggered restrict you to a standard? Yes, so it meets the 'one' condition. (Or it could meet the other, though that is really redundant to say it limits you to a standard or a move, since you could just say it limits you to a standard, and then with your standard opt to take a move action).
Restricted activity doesn't allow you to take a standard - restricted doesn't grant you anything in that regard. Restricted doesn't grant you any actions at all. Restricted says when you can only take a standard, or can only take a move, you can still take free/swift in conjunction with it.
You mean, if you change the wording then it means something different? Bravo!
Just because some situations which restrict you to either a standard or a move still allow you to take swift actions, this does not prevent a condition from denying swift actions to those suffering that condition.
Reasonable-minded folks, just give up... Trust me, Malachi is immovable once he's made his mind up :)
(No offence Malachi, but you must admit, your debating style leaves no room for compromise or shades of grey! I still recall with fondness a passionate discussion about TWF and movement...)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will give Malachi this, each example he/she gave that restricted what actions u could take made sure to include in the examples of u could take free actions or swifts. This condition does seem to omit that where the others made sure to spell out u could still take free actions or swifts if restricted to move or standards.
So he/she maybe on to something.
Edit-okay I just re read and looked up all the conditions and EVERY single one that restricts movement to a single action (weither standard or a movement action) strictly spells out about free actions, swift actions, verbal, no actions, and even mental actions. Every single one EXCEPT nauseated. Now weither it was accidently omitted from the 3.5 version or on purpose, Malachi does have a point that by RAW u cannot use free or swift actions while nausiated, because every single other one spells out what other actions (free, swift, verbal, mental, no actions, etc) except this condition. Weither by typo or on purpose, I'm gonna say Malachi actually is right on this one.
|
|
No valid reading of the PF version of Nauseated allows you to take free actions.
Except the one provided by an alternate definition of "only" that makes moving while Nauseated a Restricted Activity. I realize you disagree, but I'm not trying to change your mind - I'm just looking for answers to the question of why Nauseated creates so many paradoxes. As compelling as your arguments are, they aren't answering my question.
If that bothers you, use the 3.5 version.
As the OP states, this is a Pathfinder Society rules questions, not something that can be house-ruled for a home game.
The wrist sheath activation action is at fault. It should be a free action useable once per round, rather than a swift action.
So Nauseated has only one interpretation - but we're just going to declare another rule faulty because Nauseated turns it into a paradox?
_The leadership of this organized play community assumes that you will use common sense in your interpretation of the rules.
These forums provided a RAW reading for Nauseated that removes the breaches of common sense (i.e. paradoxes) which started this thread. I'm sorry to say it, but as compelling as your argument is, I'm constrained by the PFS requirement that GMs use common sense when interpreting the rules.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with the interpretation that makes sense and doesn't create silly situations.
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).
It's worth noting that "or" as a logical operator is different to "exclusive or", in that it allows for three possible true returns:
1 is true.
2 is true.
1 & 2 are both true.
An exclusive "or" will return false in the case of both 1 & 2 being true.
As such these are the two possible readings:
...restricted to taking only a single standard action or taking only a single move action...
...restricted to taking only a single standard action or taking only a single move action, or taking only (a single standard action or a single move action)...
Importantly, in neither case does the "or" affect the "(plus free or swift actions as normal)", because that requires the free/swift segment to be attached to move actions, but not standard actions (which is even more ridiculous).
Thus, no matter how you choose to interpret the "only X or Y", you can still take free and swift actions as normal, unless the rule in question explicitly prohibits them, which the nauseated condition does not.
The fact that other cases where restricted actions are in effect just happen to explicitly call out free and swift actions is a courtesy on the part of the designers, it is not the exception that proves the rule.
Edit: You might wonder why I mentioned "exclusive or" at all, and the answer is simple: if the text on restricted actions is an exclusive or, then the staggered condition does not meet the conditions, since it has 1 & 2 as true, and thus returns false, which is nonsensical because it would mean that the staggered condition would override the rules on restricted actions. This means that it can't be an exclusive or, which means that the text on restricted actions applies, unless directly contradicted, to both the nauseated and staggered conditions, neither of which disallow free and swift actions.
|
|
which is nonsensical because it would mean that the staggered condition would override the rules on restricted action.
First, you know very well that specific trumps general, so if restricted activity were a set of which Nauseated and Staggered were subsets, then yes they would override the rules on restricted activity.
Second, rules do exactly what they say they do. They are under no obligation to to say what that don't do! Nauseated tells you what number of actions and what types of actions you are allowed to take, and it's not okay to say that this means you can do more actions and more types of actions. The rules are permissive in this respect; if it doesn't say you can, then you can't.
If there is a mistake here, it's not that it forgets to mention that its a type of restricted activity, but that PF forgot to include the line about free actions are okay but quickened spells (their version of swift) are not. If you want to correct that mistake, and use 'common sense" as PF advises, then going back to the correct wording makes sense while reversing 'specific trumps general' and 'permissive rules' does not. Nor does imagining that restricted activity is a limit of what conditions can do to you.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Reasonable-minded folks, just give up... Trust me, Malachi is immovable once he's made his mind up :)
(No offence Malachi, but you must admit, your debating style leaves no room for compromise or shades of grey! I still recall with fondness a passionate discussion about TWF and movement...)
: )
Being certain does not equal being unreasonable.
As I pointed out, I think free (but not swift) actions are doable while Nauseated, but not because of any unwritten idea about it being restricted activity and therefore you can ignore the limits of Nauseated and replace them with restricted activity. This is not the way forward.
The way forward is to replace the clause lost when the game moved house. If the PF version doesn't make sense, this is because that vital clause is missing.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will give Malachi this, each example he/she gave that restricted what actions u could take made sure to include in the examples of u could take free actions or swifts. This condition does seem to omit that where the others made sure to spell out u could still take free actions or swifts if restricted to move or standards.
So he/she maybe on to something.
Edit-okay I just re read and looked up all the conditions and EVERY single one that restricts movement to a single action (weither standard or a movement action) strictly spells out about free actions, swift actions, verbal, no actions, and even mental actions. Every single one EXCEPT nauseated. Now weither it was accidently omitted from the 3.5 version or on purpose, Malachi does have a point that by RAW u cannot use free or swift actions while nausiated, because every single other one spells out what other actions (free, swift, verbal, mental, no actions, etc) except this condition. Weither by typo or on purpose, I'm gonna say Malachi actually is right on this one.
I have overwhelming evidence showing that Malachi is a 'he', but if I provide a link to that I'll get banned from the site and be required to provide eye bleach to every viewer.
I'm afraid you'll just have to trust me on this one. : )
|
|
It doesn't need those words. Free actions are already allowed because of the words under restricted actions, of which nauseated qualifies ( only move action = move action OR standard action evaluates to TRUE). Quickened spells are already forbidden due to the restriction on actions that require attention/concentration.
Therefore RAW works already. There is no contradiction.
If move action = move action OR standard action, then next time I'm Nauseated I'll take a standard action, both on the grounds of this 'logic', and on the grounds that Nauseated is a type of restricted activity and that allows either a standard action or a move action so I'll choose standard thank you very much.
Any objections? Any that don't also prevent the other action types that restricted activity allows but Nauseated doesn't?
which is nonsensical because it would mean that the staggered condition would override the rules on restricted action.First, you know very well that specific trumps general, so if restricted activity were a set of which Nauseated and Staggered were subsets, then yes they would override the rules on restricted activity.
Correct.
Second, rules do exactly what they say they do. They are under no obligation to to say what that don't do! Nauseated tells you what number of actions and what types of actions you are allowed to take, and it's not okay to say that this means you can do more actions and more types of actions. The rules are permissive in this respect; if it doesn't say you can, then you can't.
And here's where the problem lies. I posit that if this position is correct and that because specific trumps general, a character with the staggered condition cannot use the Start/Finish a full-round action. Why? Because the staggered condition explicitly denies the use of full-round actions, and this particular standard action is not called out as an exception, unlike in the restricted action rule (which you cannot invoke since specific trumps general).
If there is a mistake here, it's not that it forgets to mention that its a type of restricted activity, but that PF forgot to include the line about free actions are okay but quickened spells (their version of swift) are not. If you want to correct that mistake, and use 'common sense" as PF advises, then going back to the correct wording makes sense while reversing 'specific trumps general' and 'permissive rules' does not. Nor does imagining that restricted activity is a limit of what conditions can do to you.
Whilst I broadly agree that clarification is desirable, I do not agree that it is actually required in this case.
You mean, if you change the wording then it means something different? Bravo!Just because some situations which restrict you to either a standard or a move still allow you to take swift actions, this does not prevent a condition from denying swift actions to those suffering that condition.
The English language allows you to say the same thing in a multitude of ways. I have changed the words, but have not changed the meaning.
Second, rules do exactly what they say they do.
While this is true, it also needs to be understood that individual rules should not be read in a vacuum, absent of all context of the rules as a whole.
Being certain does not equal being unreasonable.
Being 'certain' in the face of reason, does though :).
I.e,
You know how the 3.5 rules worked.
You know that your extremely strict reading of the PF rules leads to some rather silly situations.
You even agree that this is how it should be.
You've had multiple people in this thread try to show you a different way of reading those rules that leads ruling that matches 3.5 and doesn't kick common sense out the door.
Given that there are often multiple ways to read RAW, is it really reasonable to insist that the correct reading is one that doesn't fit the rules as a whole, and leads to some very bizarre cases if followed strictly?
|
|
Nauseated says a move action
A restricted action is a move action OR a standard action.
Therefore nauseated is a type of restricted action.
Restricted activity refers to situations where you only get a 'half' action (as Spycraft would put it), but you can choose which type of the two 'half' actions you take.
Nauseated does not allow any action at all, with the exception of a single move action.
You may choose to think of Nauseated as a kind of restricted activity if you want, but you cannot avoid the specific restrictions imposed by the condition by looking at any general case.
Red meat is pork or beef.
I ate pork last night, therefore I ate red meat last night.
That doesn't mean pork is beef.
And if you're allergic to pork you can't say that because you're not allergic to beef and both meats are red meats that you're not allergic to pork after all.
The problem is not that you're associating the two, although you really shouldn't; if the game wants you to, it will say so, like they do with the various fear effects or fatigued/exhausted. No, the problem is that Nauseated imposes strict limits on both the number and type of actions you can take (single, move) and deliberately getting around that to say that you can take more actions and more types of actions, because of an association from your own head and not from the book.
You seem to think that you must be allowed a 'choice' between a standard or move action to qualify as a restricted action. That interpretation is completely invented, it is not supported in any way by RAW.
That interpretation is a consequence of the rules! Each round, you get a choice of what actions you take, chosen from those allowed by the game. Restricted activity simply shows what to do if a situation only allows a 'half' rounds worth of actions. Nauseated restricts your choice even more than that: take a single move action, or don't take any action at all.
But yeah, it's clear you're not open to this line of discussion.
No need for that. We disagree, we're debating.
This whole debate is based on two readings of a single sentence
That's just the tip of the iceberg. For example, does the (plus free and swift actions as normal) in brackets mean that you must be permitted free actions for it to count as restricted action, or does it mean that if your actions are restricted, you can still perform free actions?
I don't have much confidence in an FAQ resolving this any more. For example, if swift actions are allowed while nauseated, which ones require too much attention? Lay on Hands? Inquisitor Judgements?
This whole debate is based on two readings of a single sentence:
Restricted ability is when you can do a move action or a standard action.
One reading of the sentence is that:
Restricted means you get a choice between either move or standard
Other reading is:
Restricted means you can either do a move, or do a standard.Both readings are equally correct albeit leading to different interpretations.
So there really isn't a debate, because both slides use a valid raw reading of a sentance, both are correct, and neither side seems willing to budge.
So just FAQ and move on ^°
Here's the text once again:
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).1) In some situations, you may be unable to take a full round's worth of actions.
Does nauseated satisfy this statement? Yes, you are unable to take a full round's worth of actions.
2) In such cases, you are restricted to taking only a single standard action or a single move action.
Does nauseated satisfy this statement? Yes, you can only take a single move action.
Injecting choice into statement 2 is completely unjustifiable. It is not a 'correct' reading just because someone improperly interprets it that way. Nauseated literally, grammatically, and logically satisfies both 1) and 2).
How is it unjustifiable? Such a choice is injected when a character becomes Staggered (or Slowed), whereas one is not injected when it comes to the Nauseated condition. If you're going to say that the choice is not a part of the Nauseated condition, then you're going to have to say it's not a part of the Staggered condition either, which I can 100% tell you, it's bull$#!^.
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.
Staggered gives you a choice of being able to take one or the other. It also further explains that you can still take free, swift, and immediate actions as normal, which, by rights is actually unneeded verbiage, since the as-is text doesn't omit those possibilities in the first place, and serves as evidence for that being carry-over text from the Restricted Activity section.
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 action per turn.
Now compare the two entries together: All of that kind of language is missing in the Nauseated condition. It doesn't say "can take a move action, but not standard or full round actions," something that would result in the omission of the other action restrictions, it cites the same limitation as in the Restricted Activity, the word 'only'; something which, while it could be a similarity, doesn't adjust the factor that it's an exclusivistic word, and the exclusivism shown in Restricted Activity does not share the same meaning when that same word is applied in the Nauseated condition.
In fact, it lists other restrictions that Staggered doesn't provide. So now you need to ask yourself: If the Nauseated condition was, in fact, intended to allow Free, Swift, and Immediate Actions, like you say, why would they spend the time and writing space to needlessly explain that enablement in the Staggered condition, but omit it in the Nauseated condition?
|
|
1) In some situations, you may be unable to take a full round's worth of actions.
Does nauseated satisfy this statement? Yes, you are unable to take a full round's worth of actions.
Nauseated is not a situation. The surprise round is a situation. Conditions spell out exactly what game mechanics are modified.
2) In such cases, you are restricted to taking only a single standard action or a single move action
Does nauseated satisfy this statement? Yes, you can only take a single move action.
No, because you cannot take a single standard action.
Further:-
The only action such a character can take is a single move actions per turn
Does restricted activity limit you to taking no actions at all, with the single exception of taking a single move action per turn?
No. Restricted activity allows you to take a single standard action, and it allows you to take free and swift actions.
Therefore, Nauseated and restricted activity are different things. They each define the game mechanics that apply, and you can no more ignore the mechanics of one for the mechanics of the other any more than you can swap the mechanics of one spell for the mechanics of a different spell just because there are similarities while ignoring the differences.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even if the phrasing themselves are identical, you're trying to omit the different statements and trying to use that omission to treat them as synonymous terms.
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).
The only action such a character can take is a single move action per turn.
They aren't. I will point out that you can swap the two subjects the Restricted Activity is listing and you still get the same effect, but it does perfectly line up the corrolary:
In such cases, you are restricted to taking only a single move action or a single standard action (plus free and swift actions as normal).
The only action such a character can take is a single move action per turn.
Notice that when you line them up 100%, both do cover move actions. But only Restricted Activity covers Standard Actions as well, something which Nauseated cannot. Also notice that Restricted Activity allows for Swift, Free, and Immediate Actions. Nauseated doesn't say anything about being able to use them, so you don't get them.
And again, if you are going to say that Restricted Activity and Nauseated are even similar (which they aren't), you're trying to say that a specific condition, like Nauseated, doesn't supersede the general rules for Restricted Activity with its exclusivism. Last I checked, the rule is Specific Trumps General; that is, Nauseated restrictions supersede whatever Restricted Activity does.
This is a damned if you do/damned if you don't situation. If you don't call them the same, then they're separate and both subjects are mutually exclusive from each other. If you do call them the same, then one takes precedence, and by the STG rules, Restricted Activity has no jurisdiction over Nauseated.
Reasonable-minded folks, just give up... Trust me, Malachi is immovable once he's made his mind up :)
(No offence Malachi, but you must admit, your debating style leaves no room for compromise or shades of grey! I still recall with fondness a passionate discussion about TWF and movement...)
: )
Being certain does not equal being unreasonable.
Granted, but neither does being certain equal being correct :)
I'll also call the bluff the people who say that making Nauseated not allow Swift/Free/Immediate are making "silly situations": What unusual subjects?
Let's review the restrictions again: "Nauseated creatures are unable to attack, cast spells, concentrate on spells, or do anything else requiring attention."
So let's review the basic Free Actions, shall we?
-Cease Concentration on a Spell: Well, I can potentially see the case being made here, but I prefer to think of it falling under the realm of Grapple Rules, in that if you want to maintain the grapple, you must make grapple checks each round (which are standard actions). If you don't, then there's no longer a grapple. Simple as that. The same can (and should be) extrapolated for concentrating on spells. The problem here stems from the ideology that casters must spend an action to cease concentration, a major misnomer that isn't the fault of the Nauseated condition, but more the fault of Paizo not maintaining uniformity between similar rules sets. That being said, this should be a non-action instead of a Free Action.
-Dropping an Item: Seems plausible for this to not have an out, but I'm certain that when you compare dropping a shield to dropping an item, a shield itself is an item, and is a move action to drop, that the closest thing to an item is a shield, therefore, it takes a move action to drop an item. I'm glad that was so difficult.
-Quick-drawing a Weapon: This one is quite obvious. You can't use Quick Draw, and I'd say the flavor reasons behind this is because you can't really maintain both your fighting ability and your health at the same time. Hell, even trying to draw a weapon as a free action as part of a move is out of the question.
-Prepare Spell Components: Quite frankly, I'm sure that this would fall under the concept of casting spells, but let's assume that you're going to ready a spell to cast as soon as you're cured of the Nauseated condition. For starters, you can't take the Ready Action, because that's a Standard Action to do, so that's gone right out of the gate. Drawing Spell Components from your pouch would best fall under the Retrieve a Stored Item (which I know is reserved for expensive components), or Manipulating an Object (of which a Spell Component Pouch is, and you have to in order to get the components out to use the spell).
-Speak: BLAAAARRGHGHHH!!!......That is all.
If we got any other Free, Swift, or Immediate Actions to list that cause unusual situations, then go ahead.
|
|
So let's review the basic Free Actions, shall we?
…
If we got any other Free, Swift, or Immediate Actions to list that cause unusual situations, then go ahead.
The Combat chapter in the CRB lists the following as Free Actions & Move Actions (AoO data removed).
Table: Actions in Combat- Free Action
- Cease concentration on a spell
- Drop an item
- Drop to the floor
- Prepare spell components to cast a spell
- Speak
- Move Action
- Move
- Control a frightened mount
- Direct or redirect an active spell
- Draw a weapon
- Load a hand crossbow or light crossbow
- Open or close a door
- Mount/dismount a steed
- Move a heavy object
- Pick up an item
- Sheathe a weapon
- Stand up from prone
- Ready or drop a shield
- Retrieve a stored item
- So, if Nauseated prevents Free Actions, but not Move Actions, we can (ignoring possible Feats/Class/Race bonuses):
- Mount/dismount a steed, Move ~20', climb a rope, swim, jump a gap, and stand up from prone . . . but not fall down?
- Draw/sheathe a sword, load a (small) crossbow, move a heavy object, pick up a sword, ready/drop a shield . . . but not drop a sword?
If you start adding in class features, feats, items (like the spring loaded wrist sheath mentioned above) the list of paradoxes just continues to grow.
The leadership of this organized play community assumes that you will use common sense in your interpretation of the rules.
_
-Speak: BLAAAARRGHGHHH!!!......That is all.Assumes facts not in evidence.
Nauseated: Creatures with the nauseated condition experience stomach distress.
So, the current argument is that since nauseated say "move action" rather than "standard action or move action", nauseated does not qualify as restricted activity, and because it doesn't explicitly allow free or swift actions you can't make them.
Thus returning us to the fascinating "a staggered character cannot use the standard action Start/Complete Full-Round Action". Because while restricted actions allows it, the staggered condition does not. And since conditions are, well, conditional, and only apply under specific conditions, specific trumps general.
Anyone care to try to argue that away with "just because the words aren't there"?
So, the current argument is that since nauseated say "move action" rather than "standard action or move action", nauseated does not qualify as restricted activity, and because it doesn't explicitly allow free or swift actions you can't make them.
Thus returning us to the fascinating "a staggered character cannot use the standard action Start/Complete Full-Round Action". Because while restricted actions allows it, the staggered condition does not. And since conditions are, well, conditional, and only apply under specific conditions, specific trumps general.
Anyone care to try to argue that away with "just because the words aren't there"?
You're not quoting RAW text. Here's the RAW text:
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.
So there's nothing that specifically says they cannot use a specific standard action. He's not taking a move action on top of the standard action, and he's not taking a full-round action. Here's another couple important point:
Some full-round actions can be taken as standard actions, but only in situations when you are limited to performing only a standard action during your round. The descriptions of specific actions detail which actions allow this option.
The “start full-round action” standard action lets you start undertaking a full-round action, which you can complete in the following round by using another standard action. You can't use this action to start or complete a full attack, charge, run, or withdraw.
So in situations that allow you to take a full round action as a standard action, such as Charging while Staggered, it's not considered a full round action. Additionally, the part that you're highlighting specifically denotes it as being a standard action, and is costed as such over the course of 2 rounds. So no, there aren't any rules being broken there from the Staggered condition.
So you agree that the staggered condition allows you to take a full round action (by using the start/complete full round action) despite explicitly denying you the ability to take full-round actions because of rules not covered by the staggered condition?
Thanks.
I'm saying that the nauseated condition allows you to take free (and possibly some swift actions) because of rules not covered in the nauseated condition.
Can you take Free / Swift Actions when Nauseated?
By RAW: Not 100% clear. The way it was written, and including the rules as a whole, leaves more than one literal interpretation, specifically to being able to drop prone while nauseated. Since the text allows multiple interpretations, it's up to the GM, common sense and democracy to decide, but you are certantly unable to attack, cast spells, concentrate on spells, or do anything else requiring attention, althought this last one may also be subject to interpretation.
By RAI: Who knows, this one is obviously subject to different opinions.
At some point we'll have to accept the fact that some rules are not perfect, in fact, most of them aren't since we can always digg up some odd situation that the rules did not predict.
Until the Devs find time to address such small matters, when rules conflicts like that happen and it will happen (it happens all the time) just try to use some reason and decide for yourselfs, or in the worst case, roll a dice.
Personally, I'm inclined to think that, even if nauseated is considered restricted movement, maybe the restricted condition: nauseated specifically, you can't take swift or free actions, because the nauseated text specifically seems very insistent that all you can do is take a move action, but I would allow some exceptions based on common sense, like droping prone or your weapon.
So you agree that the staggered condition allows you to take a full round action (by using the start/complete full round action) despite explicitly denying you the ability to take full-round actions because of rules not covered by the staggered condition?
Thanks.
I'm saying that the nauseated condition allows you to take free (and possibly some swift actions) because of rules not covered in the nauseated condition.
There are rules in the book that specifically call out starting/completing a full round action taking a standard action to do. You're not taking a full round action, i.e. using a full attack, metamagic/summon spells, and those (bar Summon spells and the likes of Enlarge Person) complete in the same round you take them; you're starting/completing one of those activities, and you're spending standard actions to do so. A bigger question would be if spells like Enlarge Person, if cast in that manner, would go off in the time you spend the second standard action, or the round afterward, since that sort of thing is ambiguous.
It even cites it as being a type of standard action, the same way Attack is a specific type of standard action (and calls it the "start full round action" standard action). Hell, by ignoring that, the rules should allow us to Vital Strike as part of a Charge or Cleave. But they don't. I'm sure you know why that is, and that same argument can be easily extrapolated to this same predicament.
Fair enough. And yes, I'm quite well aware of the ridiculousness of my assertion. It relies on wilfully ignoring (or outright making up) features of the rules.
I consider it equally ridiculous to say that "X or Y" may only ever be read as (X or Y) and never as (X) or (Y). It just seems odd to me that being restricted to a move action is not somehow meeting the criteria for being restricted to a standard action or a move action.
I think I'll bow out as gracefully as I can before I start getting defensive (needlessly) or offensive (even more needlessly). I've FAQd the OP, and hopefully we'll get a response (whichever way it goes).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When it comes to the absurdities (can draw a weapon but not drop it, etc.), simply restore the wording that was lost in the cut/paste from the 3.5 PHB: '...only a single move action per turn (and free actions, but not quickened spells)'. Quickened spells being the forerunner of swift actions.
That's the way forward. Not by ignoring two of the core assumtions of the game:
# specific trumps general
# things do what they say they do, they should not be expected to say what they don't do
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fair enough. And yes, I'm quite well aware of the ridiculousness of my assertion. It relies on wilfully ignoring (or outright making up) features of the rules.
I consider it equally ridiculous to say that "X or Y" may only ever be read as (X or Y) and never as (X) or (Y). It just seems odd to me that being restricted to a move action is not somehow meeting the criteria for being restricted to a standard action or a move action.
I think I'll bow out as gracefully as I can before I start getting defensive (needlessly) or offensive (even more needlessly). I've FAQd the OP, and hopefully we'll get a response (whichever way it goes).
It's a catch-22. If we treat it as (X or Y), which is how it is worded, it's not treated as separate points, and the rule then essentially becomes "If you get a choice between X or Y," which Nauseated doesn't allow you to have, meaning Nauseated has its own restrictions. If we treat it as (X) or (Y), it might fall under the Restricted Activities list, but you're still left with Specifics trump General, of which Nauseated is a more specific type of restriction.
In either of those cases, the Nauseated condition, since it has limiting language similar to that of Restricted Activity, creates the precedent of "If it doesn't say X, you can't do X" that is established in other rules of the game. (After all, if the Restricted Activity section didn't include the Swift, Immediate, or Free Action clause, it'd cause essentially the same "problems" here.)
Staggered, on the other hand, doesn't have that sort of limiting language, and actually elaborates the ability to take Swift, Immediate, and Free Actions as normal, something which Nauseated lacks. Excluding that clause, Staggered still allows you to take Swift, Immediate, and Free Actions normally because the original language present doesn't set up the precedent that Nauseated and the Restricted Activity sections create.
It ultimately stems from the factor that the Restricted Activity (or even the Nauseated condition) is not clear enough as to what exactly constitutes Restricted Activity (due to the difference of language being used), and as to whether it means (X or Y), or (X) or (Y), or gives any other special exceptions (that many people on here believe need to be stated).
And to that, I agree that the OP should be FAQ'd, because we've argued this down to bare bones, and the only thing left is to wait for Paizo to decide to actually do something about it.
Look up all the conditions and see the ones that only let u take a move or a standard action. Look at them again. All of them except nauseated spell out all the other moves u can make....and that is absent from the nauseated condition.
I'm guessing that they accidently didn't xfer all the txt over because every other condition follows the rules and spells out what other moves u can take when ur restricted to just a move or standard, but nauseated doesn't have any of that language whatsoever.
When it comes to the absurdities (can draw a weapon but not drop it, etc.), simply restore the wording that was lost in the cut/paste from the 3.5 PHB: '...only a single move action per turn (and free actions, but not quickened spells)'. Quickened spells being the forerunner of swift actions.
That's the way forward. Not by ignoring two of the core assumptions of the game:
# specific trumps general
# things do what they say they do, they should not be expected to say what they don't do
It's really odd because the second of those is precisely what I think your argument overlooks.
Nauseated restricts you to only a move action, but it doesn't specifically take away the free and swift actions that - we know from restricted activity - you normally get when restricted to only a move action. It doesn't say it takes them away -> it doesn't take them away.
(I think I understand your position, but if you're quoting those as refutations to my position - you don't understand mine. So I will attempt again to make it clear).
|
|
Nauseated restricts you to only a move action, but it doesn't specifically take away the free and swift actions
???
Read what you wrote again. Nauseated restricts you to only a move action. Therefore, it already means you can't take any action that is not a move action.
To make it clearer, Nauseated is a condition, and it tells you exactly the effects that condition has on you.
Restricted activity is not a condition! Meaning, the fact that you cannot take both a standard AND a move action is not something that this 'condition' applies. It's the other way around: this is what you CAN do when some situation is taking away your ability to take both actions in the same turn. It is not a limit on how much you can be nerfed by things which take away even more actions!
Nauseated takes away your ability to do any actions at all! with the exception of a single move action.
Restricted activity doesn't restrict you in any way at all! There is no such condition!
No, other stuff can take away your ability to do both actions, and if you are in a situation where the only restriction is that you can't do both actions (or a full round action) in a turn, this paragraph summarises what you can still do.
Nauseated tells you what you cannot do (any actions at all) and what you can still do (a single move action per turn).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What we really need is a way to wager. As in, I would wager 100 dollars that if the devs ever FAQ it, they will confirm that you can indeed take free actions while nauseated, add long as they don't require concentration/attention.
I think you're right!
But not because you can ignore the restrictions of the Nauseated condition, but because the condition already let you take free actions in 3.5, and that omission is a mistake.
If PF fix it, it will be by re-instating that clause, not by creating a subordinate relationship between it and 'restricted activity'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nauseated restricts you to only a move action, but it doesn't specifically take away the free and swift actions???
Yeah, no need for the rest of that post, I can see right away how the sentence I wrote makes less sense when you delete half of it.
|
|
Read what you wrote again. Nauseated restricts you to only a move action. Therefore, it already means you can't take any action that is not a move action.
_
only
[ohn-lee]
adverb
1. without others or anything further; alone; solely; exclusively:
"This information is for your eyes only."
2. no more than; merely; just:
"If it were only true! I cook only on weekends."
3. as recently as:
"I read that article only yesterday."
4. in the final outcome or decision:
"You will only regret your harsh words to me."
adjective
5. being the single one or the relatively few of the kind:
"This is the only pencil I can find."
6. having no sibling or no sibling of the same sex:
"an only child; an only son."
7. single in superiority or distinction; unique; the best:
"the one and only Muhammad Ali."
conjunction
8. but (introducing a single restriction, restraining circumstance, or the like):
"I would have gone, only you objected."
9. Older Use. except; but:
"Only for him you would not be here."
Idioms
10. only too,
a. as a matter of fact; extremely:
"I am only too glad to go."
b. unfortunately; very:
"It is only too likely to happen."