|
Reading... Reading... Laughing.... Reading....
So, lets just remember that the free actions do have a limitation, but only as far as those things can be done without concentrating on them.
mostly a GM call at times, a character should be able to use free/swift actions to drop a weapon, Lay on Hands and other things. They, however, can not sheath a weapon as a part of movement, or recite a selitaque of prose that would melt the hearts and souls of an audience.
"Common Sense" is what we need to use at this point, not outright ban hammers or free reign.
Still laughing...
|
Based on this logic, the restricted activity paragraph is superfluous and applies to nothing, since the term appears exactly once and is never referenced anywhere else in the book.Nauseated, as a game term, does not fall under the game definition of restricted activity.
It is inappropriate to get around the written limits of the Nauseated condition by (mis)-reading a paragraph that does not even apply.
It doesn't need to be directly mentioned, as it is not a condition, nor is it a general rule for conditions.
It applies in situations where, instead of getting both standard+move, you can only choose standard OR move. That happpens in several, written situations, including: slowed by the spell, surprise round (if you are not surprised), and on zero or fewer hit points but still able to act.
In all of those situations, you can choose a standard action OR you can choose a move action, but not both and not full round. This is the definition of restricted activity, and the paragraph with that heading summarises what you can and cannot do in those situations.
If, instead of being restricted to your choice of either a standard or a move, you are instead only allowed a single move action, then this is not 'restricted activity', this is something worse! None of the text of that paragraph applies.
Analogy time: imagine a paragraph that is called 'restricted mobility', and says that if you have either your left leg amputated OR your right leg amputated, you can still hop 30-feet. Now imagine that there is a condition called 'Stumped', where both of your legs are amputated and you can only move 5-feet. What's happening in this thread is that people who have the Stumped condition are saying that they can move 30-feet on the grounds that 'restricted mobility' lets you move 30-feet, and you could argue that a person who has had both legs amputated could argue that they fit the definition of 'restricted mobility', because they fit into at least one of the two ways to qualify for restricted mobility, which is having their left leg amputated.
But 'left leg or right leg' are not two ways to qualify, it's saying that having one leg qualifies therefore having no legs is something else and 'restricted mobility' no longer applies or lets you move 30-feet.
Being limited to a 'standard action or a move action' does not mean that there are two ways to qualify for restricted activity. There is one way, and that is that you can certainly choose either a standard OR a move, but not both. If you have a condition that limits you to only a single move action, then this does not qualify as restricted activity because you are unable to choose to take a standard action, and being able to choose either action is part of the definition of restricted activity. If you can't choose to take a standard, then it doesn't meet the definition of being able to take 'a standard or a move'.
Analogy time: imagine a paragraph that is called 'restricted mobility', and says that if you have either your left leg amputated OR your right leg amputated, you can still hop 30-feet. Now imagine that there is a condition called 'Stumped', where both of your legs are amputated and you can only move 5-feet. What's happening in this thread is that people who have the Stumped condition are saying that they can move 30-feet on the grounds that 'restricted mobility' lets you move 30-feet, and you could argue that a person who has had both legs amputated could argue that they fit the definition of 'restricted mobility', because they fit into at least one of the two ways to qualify for restricted mobility, which is having their left leg amputated.
Let's fix your analogy.
If you still have your right leg (a standard action) or you still have your left leg (a move action) you can use your stumped movement speed.
Restricted activity doesn't say "If you've lost your move action or your standard action", it is permission based on still having one of those available.
Under no situation would having neither your move or standard action fit the criteria for restricted activity.
Based on this logic, the restricted activity paragraph is superfluous and applies to nothing, since the term appears exactly once and is never referenced anywhere else in the book.Nauseated, as a game term, does not fall under the game definition of restricted activity.
It is inappropriate to get around the written limits of the Nauseated condition by (mis)-reading a paragraph that does not even apply.
It doesn't need to be directly mentioned, as it is not a condition, nor is it a general rule for conditions.
It applies in situations where, instead of getting both standard+move, you can only choose standard OR move. That happpens in several, written situations, including: slowed by the spell, surprise round (if you are not surprised), and on zero or fewer hit points but still able to act.
In all of those situations, you can choose a standard action OR you can choose a move action, but not both and not full round. This is the definition of restricted activity, and the paragraph with that heading summarises what you can and cannot do in those situations.
If, instead of being restricted to your choice of either a standard or a move, you are instead only allowed a single move action, then this is not 'restricted activity', this is something worse! None of the text of that paragraph applies.
Analogy time: imagine a paragraph that is called 'restricted mobility', and says that if you have either your left leg amputated OR your right leg amputated, you can still hop 30-feet. Now imagine that there is a condition called 'Stumped', where both of your legs are amputated and you can only move 5-feet. What's happening in this thread is that people who have the Stumped condition are saying that they can move 30-feet on the grounds that 'restricted mobility' lets you move 30-feet, and you could argue that a person who has had both legs amputated could argue that they fit the definition of 'restricted...
Nothing you just mentioned references "restricted activity". Slow (the spell) has it's own rules. Surprised is it's own thing.
This is using the EXACT same logic you just used for Nauseated. Either that logic is sound and it applies the same way, or your logic is faulty.
Your claim is that:
1) Nauseated doesn't reference "restricted activity"
therefore
2) "restricted activity" has nothing to do with Nauseated
By that same logic, Slow doesn't mention "restricted activity", neither does surprise, nor any other rule/spell/feat/condition/etc. Using YOUR logic, therefore the rules in "restricted activity" don't actually apply to anything at all, since NOTHING references it.
If you do a word search of the corebook, the phrase "restricted activity" appears exactly once.
|
|
Your claim is that:
1) Nauseated doesn't reference "restricted activity"
therefore
2) "restricted activity" has nothing to do with Nauseated
That is not my logic at all.
The basis of my 'claim' has nothing to do with the fact that 'restricted activity' is not mentioned in the Nauseated description.
The basis is that the game effects of Nauseated do not qualify as restricted activity, because when you are Nauseated you cannot take a single standard action, and you can take a single standard action with restricted activity. Therefore, whatever else the paragraph may say about what you may or may not do when your activity is restricted, none of it applies to any situation or condition that doesn't allow you to take a single standard action if you want to.
Further, if a creature were to be say, slowed, AND Nauseated at the same time, then you are under the limits of each thing. You can't look at the least restrictive thing and say it lets you off the more restrictive thing.
It's like saying that you're both slowed and unconscious, therefore you can still take swift actions because restricted activity says you can.
Restricted activity no more allows you to ignore the limits imposed by being Nauseated than it allows you to ignore the limits imposed be being unconscious.
Restricted activity doesn't say "If you've lost your move action or your standard action", it is permission based on still having one of those available.It is permission based on still having both standard OR move still available.
In normal language OR never means both. Both means you have your full actions available to you (which of course includes free/swift). Or means you only have one of those available to you. X or Y is not a singular condition (but we've been over this before).
I can't believe I'm still adding to this thread...
Okay.
Free action-action
Swift action-action
Move action-action
Standard action-action
Restricted activity-...guess what? Action.
Nauseated allows one of the above. Not two. Not four.
Nauseated also applies limitations on that single allowed action type.
The writers ADDED text to put MORE limitations on what you can do with your move action.
They went out of their way to clarify. They didn't put the Restricted activity action as an allowable option. I won't question their motivations, but it's pretty clear that "Restricted activity" isn't there.
Whether or not that makes the text for Restricted Activity superfluous is irrelevant. Having a block of text serve no purpose isn't the basis for an argument that it should be included in something. Feeling sorry for an abandoned paragraph doesn't change the nature of Nauseated.
Just because I don't AGREE with how Nauseated works (not allowing the dropping of weapons? whaaaaaat?) doesn't mean that I'm interpreting it wrong.
Should dropping weapons be turned into a "non-action"? Probably. Does the fact that not being able to drop it mean we are reading it wrong? No.
There are lots of strange things in the game, it isn't perfect. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it's wrong.
I don't agree with how powerful casters are, but I don't try to argue that they can't cast spells by analyzing each individual word in a sentence looking for alternate meanings...
To paraphrase no one in particular...
Nausea is a horrible condition, it's writing seems clear, though it produces strange effects... it isn't perfect, but it is as the creators made it.
I choose to use it as it is written in the book, others may not do so. That is your right, all the more power to you.
Personally, I would never bother using an effect that produces it, as you could just do a death effect using the same Fort save.
Of course, they don't really say what happens when you die... you could argue that there aren't any rules saying you have to stop acting...
In fact, just for giggles, look at the feat "Weapon Proficiency", note that it DOESN'T GRANT PROFICIENCY! It only removes the penalty for attacking with the weapon.
Then look at feats requiring proficiency... and realize that unless you have proficiency granted to through other means (such as class proficiency) YOU ACTUALLY CAN'T TAKE THOSE FEATS!!!
The system isn't perfect. Some people look TOO closely at it, you gotta zoom out and just read things as they are, not go looking from every little interconnecting thread trying to make it all reference every other part of the text.
Don't pull too hard on that thread or the whole thing falls apart.
The real irony here is that the people that argue rules the least are probably the younger kids... this is a game, written to be understood by a younger crowd as well as adults... applying adult logic and a deeper understanding of english can CAUSE problems...
*shrugs*
...
The system isn't perfect. Some people look TOO closely at it, you gotta zoom out and just read things as they are, not go looking from every little interconnecting thread trying to make it all reference every other part of the text.Don't pull too hard on that thread or the whole thing falls apart.
The real irony here is that the people that argue rules the least are probably the younger kids... this is a game, written to be understood by a younger crowd as well as adults... applying adult logic and a deeper understanding of english can CAUSE problems...
The reason people try to pull apart the rules and analyse them carefully isn't because they think the rules have some deep meaning carefully interwoven through them by the devs. The reason people perform deep destructuring of rules that *should* be well understood by a 12 year old is because the rules are frequently really, REALLY badly written. Sometimes they are just outright contradictory.
The only way to figure out what the hell the words in the book are actually supposed to mean is by attempting to divine the thought processes going through the devs heads when they wrote (or copy-pasted from 3.5) the rules in the first place. This is usually done through analyzing the language they use in conjunction with rules in other places and the language used in those rules. It would be nice if we didn't have to do any of this, but since the rules are basically broken all over the place we kind of have to if we actually want some semblance of a functioning rules set.
This is why people look at rules all over the place trying to understand a couple of sentences. Take the topic of this thread for example. Here is just one of the questions that need to be answered to divine the Rules as Intended for nauseated.
1. Does nauseated count as a restricted activity? It depends depending on how you parse the wording on restricted activities - does Move or Standard mean:
A)conditions that allow only a single move action or conditions that only allow a single standard action or conditions that allow one or the other or both
B)conditions that allow only "a single move action or standard action" as per how staggered works
Both are valid ways of parsing that sentence grammatically. We now have 2 different interpretations of RAW with no clear way of deciding between them.
To try to figure this out we need to figure out what "Restricted Activity" could apply to and attempt to determine what the devs were thinking of when they wrote "Restricted Activity". One aspect of that is that we generally operate on the basis that (hopefully) the devs didn't write text that is literally completely pointless. If an interpretation is found to make the text pointless it suggests (but not proves) that that particular interpretation is wrong and not RAI.
Hence the Deep Analysis of English when figuring out the rules.
Side note:Amusingly your suggestion of using a death effect instead of inflicting nauseated is terrible advice. Pretty much every death effect is atrocious for it's level. Even if we open it up to any fort save SOD the first decent SOD is Suffocate at 5th level. The best nauseated inflicting spell I can think of, stinking cloud, is 2 levels lower, affects a 40 foot wide area and also breaks line of sight regardless of saves because it is a fog cloud. I should also point out that Suffocate is disgustingly powerful for it's level, and is arguably the best single target SOD in the game.
I'll leave it alone now. Neither you actually bothers to read what people are writing. You make things up and assign examples to us that we aren't using or arguing for.
Thread hidden.
I can't believe I'm still adding to this thread...
Okay.
Free action-action
Swift action-action
Move action-action
Standard action-action
Restricted activity-...guess what? Action.
Maybe I'm not understanding what you are saying here, but "Restricted Activity" isn't an action.
I can take a move action to move, draw a weapon, get something from my pack.
I can take a swift to cast a quickened spell, use grit/panache/arcane pool for various effects.
I can take a standard to attack, cast a spell, etc.
There is no "I take a restricted activity to....". Restricted activity isn't an action. It is a rules clause that kicks in when certain other actions you can normally take have been restricted.
In normal language OR never means both. Both means you have your full actions available to you (which of course includes free/swift). Or means you only have one of those available to you. X or Y is not a singular condition (but we've been over this before).Restricted activity doesn't say "If you've lost your move action or your standard action", it is permission based on still having one of those available.It is permission based on still having both standard OR move still available."Would you like ketchup or mustard on your hot dog?"
"Yes, please. I'll have both."
"Sorry, you can only have one or the other."
I may have both. I am not required to have both. Or does not mean you MUST have both if you take one of them - that was my point. Not that OR excluded taking both, it just doesn't require it.
If I have no status effects limiting my actions and it is my turn, would it be valid for a GM to ask me if I'd like to take a standard or move action on my turn? Yes.
Could I take just a move? Yes. In this case would it be valid to say I took a standard or a move action on my turn? Yes, I took a move.
Could I take just a standard? Yes. In this case would it be valid to say I took a standard or a move action on my turn? Yes, I took a standard.
Can I take both? Yes. In this case would it be valid to say I took a standard or a move action on my turn? Yes, (I actually took both).
Does this change anything if I can only take a move action? (only where I'm asking if I took a standard specifically), let's see it play out.
(This is the important one) Could I take just a move? Yes. In this case would it be valid to say I took a standard or a move action on my turn? Yes, I took a move (I'm allowed a move).
Could I take just a standard? No, you may only take a move.
Can I take both? No. You are restricted from taking the standard.
Same applies if we only have a standard.
This is the very thing restricted activity refers to. It says if you can do one, or the other, or both (though the benefits in this case are already implied cause if you have both you have your full round actions and can take free/swift anyway), then you can take free/swift.
"There are no boys or girls in the classroom."
(true, because there are BOTH boys and girls in the classroom?)
(You added this in after I was already typing)
Really?!? :0
If there is a classroom with 5 boys and 5 girls in it, and I ask if there are any boys in the classroom you'd tell me that the correct answer is no, there are no boys in the classroom?
Are there any girls? No?
Are there any kids that are either boys or girls? No?
Are there both boys and girls? Yes.
All of those answers should be yes. Because saying no to any of them is not true. Now you might say, "Yes, there are boys in the classroom, and there are some girls too" if you wanted to clarify it wasn't a classroom of all boys. But there most certainly are boys in that classroom regardless.
Okay, I guess I failed at my attempt to convey something.
In logic, OR means: (by truth table)
F F F
F T T
T F T
T T THowever, in English, OR can also sometimes mean:
F F F
F T T
T F T
T T FThe second example is actually a logical XOR, but English often uses OR interchangeably for either.
Yes. But determining a XOR is highly dependent on context. And in either case, both OR and XOR satisfy the restricted activity condition (but for the record, it's an inclusive OR - otherwise it might be suggested that if you have both available then you can't take free/swift).
Example, a 1 scoop ice cream cone can have chocolate or vanilla, but cannot have a scoop of both (XOR). A two scoop cone could have 2 of either, or one of each (OR) - unless of course you know the store for some strange reason refuses to put both kinds on the same cone (changing it back to XOR) - but that odd rule of the store would be a context thing to convey that.
bbangerter, do you feel this might impact this discussion at all?
I don't think it makes any difference because of this:
...in either case, both OR and XOR satisfy the restricted activity condition [clause] (but for the record, it's an inclusive OR...).
Well my 2cp I would allow them at my tables however I'm gonna click the button cuz i do see both sides of the coin.
*Pokes head in.* Ah, still no official answer?
*Retracts head.*
Official Rules Response
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nauseated and Actions: Does the nauseated condition really mean what it says when it says “The only action such a character can take is a single move action per turn” or does it just mean I can’t take a standard action?
The nauseated condition really means what it says. You are limited to one move action per round, and not any other actions. Compare to the staggered condition, which says “A staggered creature may take a single move action or standard action each round (but not both, nor can he take full-round actions). A staggered creature can still take free, swift, and immediate actions.”
Sweet!
That didn't take long...
;)
Can't drop your weapon. Apparently you're too sick to drop that sword...
Nauseated and Actions: Does the nauseated condition really mean what it says when it says “The only action such a character can take is a single move action per turn” or does it just mean I can’t take a standard action?
The nauseated condition really means what it says. You are limited to one move action per round, and not any other actions. Compare to the staggered condition, which says “A staggered creature may take a single move action or standard action each round (but not both, nor can he take full-round actions). A staggered creature can still take free, swift, and immediate actions.”
I had a feeling this was the case. Thanks for the official clarification guys!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can see this leading to another FAQ to determine whether a move action can be used to perform what would normally be a free or swift action. Casual intuition says yes, RAW, backed up by FAQ says No. I suspect it's Quickened spells and talking that are the issues though as shown below many free actions have move action equivalents, which incur AoO where the free action doesn't. So it's a game mechanic reason.
Still there are ways around it for many actions:
Q: Can I drop a weapon whilst nauseated? (Free Action)
A: No, but you can place it on the ground. (Move Action)
Q: Can I drop to the floor whilst nauseated? (Free Action)
A: No, but you can lie down. (Move Action)
Q: Can I cease concentration on a spell whilst nauseated? (Free Action)
A: No, but you can redirect an active spell to end. (Move Action)
Q: Can I cast a quickened spell whilst nauseated? (Swift Action)
A: No and you can't cast a normal spell either as that would be a standard action.
Q: Can I cast Feather Fall whilst nauseated? (Immediate Action)
A: No as it requires an immediate action and whilst nauseated you are unable to take immediate actions
Q: Can I prepare spell components to cast a spell whilst nauseated? (Free Action)
A: No, but you can retrieve the items from the pouch. (Move Action)
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So what action type is required to drink an alchemical remedy? I can't find any specific rules about this so I'm assuming it's a standard action. Wismuth Salix is designed to help with the nauseated condition, but now I'm thinking that you can't actually use it while nauseated even though it says
If you drink a vial of it while suffering from the nauseated or sickened condition, you may immediately roll another saving throw (with the +2 bonus) against the effect; you may gain this particular benefit only once per day.
It would be a little strange if this is giving rules for a situation that can never occur.
So what action type is required to drink an alchemical remedy? I can't find any specific rules about this so I'm assuming it's a standard action. Wismuth Salix is designed to help with the nauseated condition, but now I'm thinking that you can't actually use it while nauseated even though it says
If you drink a vial of it while suffering from the nauseated or sickened condition, you may immediately roll another saving throw (with the +2 bonus) against the effect; you may gain this particular benefit only once per day.It would be a little strange if this is giving rules for a situation that can never occur.
Your friend can pour it down your throat.
Well they can pour it in your mouth, but wouldn't swallowing be an action on your part? I'd assume it would be a free action, but those are now forbidden to you. I'm really shaky on this area of the rules, so some citations would be appreciated.
So what action type is required to drink an alchemical remedy? I can't find any specific rules about this so I'm assuming it's a standard action. Wismuth Salix is designed to help with the nauseated condition, but now I'm thinking that you can't actually use it while nauseated even though it says
If you drink a vial of it while suffering from the nauseated or sickened condition, you may immediately roll another saving throw (with the +2 bonus) against the effect; you may gain this particular benefit only once per day.It would be a little strange if this is giving rules for a situation that can never occur.
I imagine it's not much different than consuming a potion or an elixir, or an infusion from an Alchemist for that matter. In all of those instances, you're spending a Standard Action to consume magical liquid bottled into a glass vial. This isn't any different. That being said, it actually fails upon itself, because you can't feasibly drink it when ruled that way. It will work for the Sickened condition, but per RAW, you can't drink it if you're Nauseated because you don't have the actions for it.
If you want even more shenanigans regarding this, a Paladin who is Nauseated cannot use Lay on Hands to remove that condition from themselves. This not only cuts off their offensive ability, but their ability to self-sustain as well. Unless the Paladin becomes immune to the Sickened or Nauseated condition, that is perhaps the #1 way to shut down a Paladin (and I believe is something an Anti-Paladin can acquire with his Cruelties).
Here's the rules for Activation regarding Potions and the like:
Drinking a potion or applying an oil requires no special skill. The user merely removes the stopper and swallows the potion or smears on the oil. The following rules govern potion and oil use.
Drinking a potion or using an oil is a standard action. The potion or oil takes effect immediately. Using a potion or oil provokes attacks of opportunity. An enemy may direct an attack of opportunity against the potion or oil container rather than against the character. A successful attack of this sort can destroy the container, preventing the character from drinking the potion or applying the oil.
A creature must be able to swallow a potion or smear on an oil. Because of this, incorporeal creatures cannot use potions or oils. Any corporeal creature can imbibe a potion or use an oil.
A character can carefully administer a potion to an unconscious creature as a full-round action, trickling the liquid down the creature's throat. Likewise, it takes a full-round action to apply an oil to an unconscious creature.
Thanks, Darksol. :)
Now I see where Chess Pwn got the part about pouring it down their throat. For some reason I couldn't find it in my searches.
Now I'm off to find ways to apply the nauseated condition to my enemies. ;)
As an aside, it appears making a Paladin Nauseated is almost impossible, given that a lot of things that cause Nauseated are Disease-related, and Paladins are immune to that. Barring the Immunity, tacking on Divine Grace and possessing Good Fortitude Saves, unless the Paladin rolls a 1, he's probably not going to fall victim to becoming Nauseated, much less Sickened.
It is definitely great for shutting down casters, that's for sure.
**EDIT** Also note that per RAW, the Full Round Action for force-feeding only works on Unconscious creatures, meaning being Nauseated, yet awake, would not be grounds for Force-feeding.
[Buttheadvoice]Being Nauseated sucks.[/Buttheadvoice]
**EDIT** Also note that per RAW, the Full Round Action for force-feeding only works on Unconscious creatures, meaning being Nauseated, yet awake, would not be grounds for Force-feeding.
That actually fits with my earlier thoughts that you would have to act to swallow the remedy and yet you can't take any actions, even free ones, during someone else's turn. Maybe you need to have your friends knock you unconscious and then trickle it down your throat to use it? Otherwise it would seem that the product actually can't do what it says it can. Weird.
**EDIT** Also note that per RAW, the Full Round Action for force-feeding only works on Unconscious creatures, meaning being Nauseated, yet awake, would not be grounds for Force-feeding.That actually fits with my earlier thoughts that you would have to act to swallow the remedy and yet you can't take any actions, even free ones, during someone else's turn. Maybe you need to have your friends knock you unconscious and then trickle it down your throat to use it? Otherwise it would seem that the product actually can't do what it says it can. Weird.
It's not because you can't act to swallow it, it's because you don't have the Unconscious condition required in order to be force-fed the potion/elixir/infusion/whatever. It's a little silly for an argument, but that is the RAW of the matter: No Condition = No Option.
Also, this wouldn't be the first time stuff is written in a manner that you can't actually properly use it, so saying that the item doesn't work the way it should as written is not much different than the Prone Shooter, pre-errata Crane Riposte, and Monkey Lunge feats, or the Overrun Combat Maneuver for that matter. Hell, even the Jaunt Boots, which should allow you to move up to 15 feet with a 5-foot step, per RAW requires a Standard Action to do, which is beyond stupid. All of those subjects are things that just do not function at all the way they're designed to function, and this item is one of that fold.
If you want even more shenanigans regarding this, a Paladin who is Nauseated cannot use Lay on Hands to remove that condition from themselves. .
They certainly can if they have the right mercy. Lay On Hands can be used as a standard action. The Paladin's abilty to swift use the ability doesn't negate the ability they also have to use it as a standard action.
If you want even more shenanigans regarding this, a Paladin who is Nauseated cannot use Lay on Hands to remove that condition from themselves. .They certainly can if they have the right mercy. Lay On Hands can be used as a standard action.
From the PRD:
The only action such a character can take is a single move actions per turn.
(Interesting typo there.)
The recently issued FAQ says:
You are limited to one move action per round, and not any other actions.
We have two official sources saying you can't do what you're describing. So, even if it's a Standard Action, something which I already took into account, you can't do it per the rules. This means that a Paladin, if he miraculously becomes Nauseated, not only can't cure himself, but can't use Lay On Hands to sustain himself in battle either. Even if he had a Potion or similar item, he'd have to be knocked Unconscious and forcefed the potion from another ally in order to remove it, something that's risky, since the only way you could be considered Unconscious would be if you were put into negative HP from lethal or non-lethal damage.
If you want even more shenanigans regarding this, a Paladin who is Nauseated cannot use Lay on Hands to remove that condition from themselves. .They certainly can if they have the right mercy. Lay On Hands can be used as a standard action.From the PRD:
The only action such a character can take is a single move actions per turn.(Interesting typo there.)
The recently issued FAQ says:
You are limited to one move action per round, and not any other actions.We have two official sources saying you can't do what you're describing. So, even if it's a Standard Action, something which I already took into account, you can't do it per the rules. This means that a Paladin, if he miraculously becomes Nauseated, not only can't cure himself, but can't use Lay On Hands to sustain himself in battle either. Even if he had a Potion or similar item, he'd have to be knocked Unconscious and forcefed the potion from another ally in order to remove it, something that's risky, since the only way you could be considered Unconscious would be if you were put into negative HP from lethal or non-lethal damage.
You are right...Nauseation is supposed to incapacitate everyone.
You can take a move action but not a free action?
That's pretty stupid.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think this qualifies as an FAQ that causes more problems than it solves.
Remind me - what was bad about letting a nauseated character use a spring loaded wrist sheath or drop a weapon? Were there any swift or free actions that caused a problem but didn't fall under the "attack, cast spells, concentrate on spells, or do anything else requiring attention" part of the Nauseated condition?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, one of my counters to Stinking Cloud was to draw a bottle of Vapors of Easy Breath and then as a free action drop it on the ground, shattering it and thus exposing myself and anyone nearby to them to get a new saving throw.
I for one think this is a bad FAQ. It looks like it was written lazily by just reaffirming what the book says without reading through the arguments in this thread that demonstrate that some of the free actions make good sense (i.e. dropping stuff, falling prone etc.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am afraid that some of these decisions are made without listening to any of the arguments from each side.
Well, one of my counters to Stinking Cloud was to draw a bottle of Vapors of Easy Breath and then as a free action drop it on the ground, shattering it and thus exposing myself and anyone nearby to them to get a new saving throw.
I for one think this is a bad FAQ. It looks like it was written lazily by just reaffirming what the book says without reading through the arguments in this thread that demonstrate that some of the free actions make good sense (i.e. dropping stuff, falling prone etc.)
Or maybe they felt those were non-issues. Let's talk from a flavor stand-point on your examples, since I feel a discussion of flavor can very well explain their design choices and intent behind their decision.
If you tried falling prone, that would be quite a shift on your body that can cause you throwing up quite easily. If you've seen someone that's passed out on the floor, usually in a pool of their own vomit, that's because they're highly Nauseated (and in today's world, usually from extremely high levels of alcohol). I can assure you that they probably didn't get there by taking a Free Action to lie on the floor; they're on the floor because they became Unconscious.
As for dropping a weapon, you can be right in that is a little silly, though some can argue that you would actually be using it to keep you standing, or actually using it as a means to help stave off that intense feeling of violent expulsion by keeping your body stable. Remember that even with the Nauseated condition, regardless of restricting Free Actions, you can't really use that weapon for any offensive means, such as attacking, combat maneuvers, or even using any special abilities on the weapon unless they were Move Actions to use.
The entire point of the Nauseated condition is that you're fighting your damnedest not to be basically throwing up your internal organs and such, and constantly moving through the means of combat, such as shifting weapons between hands, dropping them, trying to consciously drop to the floor, all while not trying to throw up, is something that Paizo currently feels would be physically impossible to do by the rules, regardless of fantasy level.
To be fair though, even if you could use those activities, I don't see any benefit to using those activities at all, since, unless you can remove the Nauseated condition as a Move Action, which is impossible to do under the current rules set, dropping to the floor (which makes it easier for enemies to hit you in melee), and dropping or shifting weapons (which the former makes you even more defenseless once a party member fixes the problem, and the latter has no seeming mechanical benefit) are all things that a player would never ever do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's sort of like being Panicked - all you can do is stagger away from the thing that nauseated you.
There are lots of things you can do other than stagger away. You can stand up (but not fall down), draw a weapon (but not drop one), retrieve an item from your backpack, redirect a spell, mount a horse, strap a shield to your arm, drink a potion with the Accelerated Drinker feat, initiate a Battle Dance as a Dervish Dancer (but not maintain it), reload a light crossbow (as long as you don't have the Rapid Reload feat, which changes it into a free action for you).
But you can't release someone from a grapple, or maintain the grapple, so I don't know what happens if you become nauseated while grappling someone.