| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Failure to maintain a grapple results in letting go, so you let go.
You have to try to maintain it in order to fail to maintain it. Trying is a standard action. Letting go on purpose is a free action.
Of course, if you have Greater Grapple, there's no problem; you can maintain the grapple as a move action (but you can't stop grappling).
Then what does "you can, as the creature that initiated the grapple, release the grapple as a free action, removing the condition from both you and the target" mean? It seems like you're just giving people free actions for free.
How about failing to hold on to the item I want to drop? Is that an action?
Can you talk while nauseated?
I was under the impression that you can always use a longer action to do a shorter action. For example, I can use a full round action to do a standard action, or a standard action to do a move action. In the case of nauseated, I would think you could use your move action to do a free action, but not both.
I could be wrong however...
Is this where we are at now? A grapple must be maintained. If you can take no other action than a move action you can't take the action to maintain. So it fails. Are you suggesting that anything that stops someone from rolling to maintain a grapple means it goes on forever?You have to try to maintain it in order to fail to maintain it. Trying is a standard action. Letting go on purpose is a free action.
Of course, if you have Greater Grapple, there's no problem; you can maintain the grapple as a move action (but you can't stop grappling).
That's actually a gray area, and one that the FAQ doesn't necessarily cover.
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.
Some might construe maintaining a Grapple as Attacking. Similarly, it could be argued as requiring attention, since it is something that you have to roll for and make a check each round, similar to spending a Free Action each round to maintain Bardic Performances. My personal opinion would be that you couldn't maintain a grapple, even with Greater Grapple, for the above reasons. Other GMs could rule differently. YMMV.
You couldn't willingly break the grapple and you couldn't maintain it. You can hurl your guts up whilst holding on to the opponent and they can auto-win the grapple and decide whether to release you or to carry on grappling.
Can you talk while nauseated?
More experimental evidence than I would like to have points to "kind of"
Can you talk while nauseated?More experimental evidence than I would like to have points to "kind of"
Only to your God using the porcelain telephone
Can you talk while nauseated?More experimental evidence than I would like to have points to "kind of"
Pre-FAQ, it had table variance, some people said yes, some people said no, and the answer was unclear.
Post-FAQ, it's quite clear the answer is "No," as you can't take the Free Action outside your turn to speak, as the FAQ reiterates that you cannot take any other actions besides a Move Action.
@ Hugo Rune: The Grapple entry from the PRD has this to say on the matter:
If you do not release the grapple, you must continue to make a check each round, as a standard action, to maintain the hold...
...Once you are grappling an opponent, a successful check allows you to continue grappling the foe, and also allows you to perform one of the following actions (as part of the standard action spent to maintain the grapple).
Now, I will go ahead and say that it's not explicitly spelled out, but there are inverse consequences that are quite obvious here, and they give us one of them: Standard Action + Successful Check = Maintained Grab. These must both be met in order to maintain the grab. This means that if either of these subjects in the equation vary, such as not using an appropriate action to maintain the grab, or by failing the check, this results in the opposite answer, which is No Maintained Grab, and if the Grab is not maintained, then the grapple is released (because the check to maintain the grapple each round is absolutely, 100% required).
Also note that maintaining a Grapple is not much different than doing the same thing for Concentration on a spell, or continuing a Bardic Performance: Both of these require actions each round to spend, and if they are not spent, then these effects end (or follow their usual duration). I see no reason to treat Grappling any different other than by giving it a different name and statistical implications.
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?
Lay on hands?
@Darksol I was being semi-ficitious given the poorly worded FAQ and its consequences.
The grapple rules allow the grappler (the one who initiated/won the grapple check) to release the grappled (the one who lost or didn't initiate) as a free-action.
Per FAQ'd RAW, someone who is nauseated can't take a free action so if the grappler became nauseated they couldn't release the grapple, nor could they take the standard action to maintain the grapple. The only other option is that at the next grapple check they automatically lose and become the grappled.
Edit: I think the FAQ needs to be reworded so that a nauseated character can take a single free, swift or move action that does not involve attacking, casting spells or concentration. But the FAQ as it stands clearly does not say that.
As a point, everyone who argues you can't talk because you're vomiting is ignoring the fact that this isn't what nauseated says. It says you experience "extreme distress", which could also very easily apply to very high degrees of pain or nausea without actually vomiting at all. Also, you don't just continually vomit; because of the way your throat works, you actually HAVE to stop vomiting in order to breath. Unless you honestly believe that by RAW a nauseated character must make constitution checks to not suffocate while under the effects of being nauseated. People who are vomiting often stop for several seconds at a time, allowing them to talk, cough, breathe, etc.
I'll also stand behind the argument that it would mean you shouldn't be able to defend yourself at all. You can't maneuver your shield to defend yourself as a move action either, and moving your body so your armor takes the blow isn't a move action either. Also, by RAW you can't fall prone as a move action, trading types of actions didn't exist until 4E, so using that to defend your reasoning is faulty. Let alone, as mentioned previously, 'personal' target spells/abilities that remove nauseated then don't work by the games rules, even though they are meant to remove the condition from one's self. Are you really willing to believe they purposefully created a host of things you can't use rather than that you can take swift/free actions.
Besides, again, the rules state you can take a swift/free action any time you can take a move action. All this together says to me that this is a non-issue and should have been fine. Of course, this WHOLE argument could have been avoided if you just had the Accelerated Drinker talent.
Besides, again, the rules state you can take a swift/free action any time you can take a move action.
Interesting observation, it makes sense but I haven't found the reference and the Nauseated FAQ seems to imply the opposite. Please could you provide a link to the source.
With regards to your other points, I think a person could defend themselves - the survival instinct is strong - and would put a shield or weapon in the way to stop an attack but they would be too ill to fight back.
I agree that you needn't actually be vomiting but, and again this is as a result of the FAQ not allowing free actions, people are reverse-justifying a poorly explained ruling and using vomiting as justification for not speaking. One could easily say you are feeling too nauseous to do anything but groan or whimper.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't matter if the rules state you can take them when you can take a Move Action, as that's not relevant to the specific rules that override those general rules.
Per FAQ and RAW, if you're Nauseated, you can't take any sort of action outside of a single Move Action, period. End of discussion. This means you can't talk (but you can breathe, as that doesn't take an action), you can't use Lay On Hands, you can't initiate a Bardic Performance (unless you can do so as a Move Action), you can't maintain one either, nor can you Rage or Smite Evil: Unless you can do it as a Move Action, then you can't do it.
If you don't like it, that's fine, rule it differently in your home games, but that is how Nauseated officially functions now.
It doesn't matter if the rules state you can take them when you can take a Move Action, as that's not relevant to the specific rules that override those general rules.
Per FAQ and RAW, if you're Nauseated, you can't take any sort of action outside of a single Move Action, period. End of discussion. This means you can't talk (but you can breathe, as that doesn't take an action), you can't use Lay On Hands, you can't initiate a Bardic Performance (unless you can do so as a Move Action), you can't maintain one either, nor can you Rage or Smite Evil: Unless you can do it as a Move Action, then you can't do it.
If you don't like it, that's fine, rule it differently in your home games, but that is how Nauseated officially functions now.
There is a huge difference if a free or swift action can be taken instead of a move action as opposed to as well as a move action. Hence the request for JDPhipps source reference.
It would be helpful if the PDT could explain how one can be limited to a move action but not, instead, perform any action that takes less time/effort than a move action in lieu of an actual move action.
They can't.
They decided they didn't want people casting quickened fireballs while nauseated so they took away swift actions. Not sure about free actions; I guess they just took them all away to "err on the side of caution".
It would be helpful if the PDT could explain how one can be limited to a move action but not, instead, perform any action that takes less time/effort than a move action in lieu of an actual move action.They can't.
They decided they didn't want people casting quickened fireballs while nauseated so they took away swift actions. Not sure about free actions; I guess they just took them all away to "err on the side of caution".
That's not it. They couldn't have cast Quickened spells before, because you can't cast spells when Nauseated. It's specifically listed as being impossible to do in the condition entry. That was never debated.
What was debated, was if you could take other valid Swift Actions (such as Lay On Hands), or other Free Actions (such as Raging). And the FAQ says no, you can't.
I seriously don't know how it's that difficult to understand.
@ Hugo Rune: Here's what he said:
the rules state you can take a swift/free action any time you can take a move action.
That is not the same thing as substituting or using a Move Action to cause a Swift/Free Action, or vice-versa. Even if you could, you wouldn't be able to, because you can't take Free or Swift Actions when Nauseated.
Even so, here's what the relevant rules say:
You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally.
Keep in mind that it is under normal circumstances, you can. Being Nauseated is certainly not normal circumstances, as there is both text and a FAQ altering your ability to do so normally. There is otherwise no text referring to being able to take a Free Action as a Move Action, so right off the gate, that's debunked for Free Actions.
You can perform one swift action per turn without affecting your ability to perform other actions. In that regard, a swift action is like a free action...
...You can take a swift action anytime you would normally be allowed to take a free action.
This set of text refers to being able to take a Swift Action without affecting your ability to perform other actions. Seems like a one-way ticket for this to work with the Nauseated condition pre-FAQ, no?
But it then says that it behaves like a Free Action in that regard, in multiple instances I might add, meaning that if a Free Action says you can only do so normally, then that same restriction applies to Swift Actions (and by the Transitive Property of Congruence, Immediate Actions) as well. Lacking any explicit text here as with the Free Action entries, this argument becomes debunked as well.
Needless to say, not only can you not take Move Actions to perform Swift Actions, but that is a common Houserule you'll see on the forums, and isn't a supported precedent, as Paizo designed a Magic Item like this one which does precisely what he's referencing can be done.
What you're really saying is that the reason the PDT decided you can't take a free action because they don't want you to do these other things.
That's exactly what I'm saying. Because that's exactly what they ruled, and that's exactly why they ruled it that way. Because they didn't want you to take Free and Swift and Immediate Actions, and any other actions that weren't Move Actions while Nauseated. That's the rationale we're given to understand, and you even said it yourself, that you can understand that rationale.
Something that's arbitrary means it's done randomly and without reason, and here you are, saying you understand something that's synonymous with reason itself. It's either rational and makes sense, or arbitrary and insane, it can't be both. Pick one and stick with it.
@DarkSol, I think you think I'm disagreeing with you but I'm not.
I don't believe there is any RAW that says you can substitute a move action for a free/swift action as in normal play it wouldn't make sense. With the new nauseated FAQ, many have brought up examples where taking a free or swift action instead of a move action would make sense but is not allowed. If I am wrong and there is a reference as intimated by JDPhipps claiming it to be a non-issue then highlighting that would be very useful - it may have been part of the basis for the ruling the PDT team made.
Although the ruling is very tersely worded and could do with a better explanation I think that in most cases it does actually work as I think the PDT intended.
As we all know and agree nauseated character cannot attack, cast or concentrate on spells or anything else that requires attention. Also it has been clarified that they cannot take free or swift actions. So the effect of the ruling is:
Players cannot actively communicate to others - Talking is out so no hints etc.
Players cannot attack - they are not helpless though and can defend themselves from attack.
Movement like free actions are out - there are move actions that replicate the same effect but attract AoO where the free action does not(e.g. sit down instead of drop prone, place on ground rather than drop an item).
Casting spells is out.
Using supernatural abilities is effectively out - usually these are standard actions, but with the clarification so are the swift ones like Lay on Hands and I haven't found any feats that change a supernatural ability from a standard to a move action.
The two areas appearing to cause discord are the free actions and the supernatural abilities. I can believe the PDT intended for those movement related free actions to provoke AoO whilst in a nauseated state and I can believe that the PDT had consciously decided that supernatural abilities should also be excluded and didn't want to errata the rule.
I can also believe the PDT wrote the FAQ last thing on a Friday before going to the pub (or other work social) and that's why it's so poorly explained.
@ Hugo Rune: Right, and all I said was that his argument had zero evidence and there was anti-precedence. If he does manage to pull one out of his arse, I can assure you that it's probably not intended to function that way.
People not liking an official ruling is one thing, and that's fine. People not liking an official ruling and then using it as a reason to not treat it as an official rule is another, and it's not acceptable on the Rules Question forums to do that. It's stupid, petty, misleads others, and quite frankly undermines the value of the PDT proposing FAQs here on the forums.
When this thread started, people formed sides, and would not be content with accepting the opposite argument until official clarification was given.
It's now been given.
And look what's happening. People not accepting the opposite argument being the official rule because it wasn't their argument or design philosphy. Why did we even ask for a FAQ, when people who wanted a FAQ, didn't actually want a FAQ? And instead wanted their interpretation to be THE interpretation, and every other interpretation to be wrong? What solace is there in this so-called "justice" that these complacent humans seek? None, I tell you. None.
They won't ever be happy or accepting of anything unless it is their own interpretation, and that's not a healthy attitude that should be brought into the Rules Question forums, especially in regards to obviously unclear subject matter.
At this point, I can almost understand why SKR decided to leave the PDT, and it's probably because of silly and absolutely ridiculous moments like these, where people demand answers, get them, and effectively defeat the entire purpose of the PDT providing answers to the forumites (and other players) by revealing they didn't want an answer, they just only wanted to listen what they wanted to hear, their own interpretation. That's just outright toxic behavior.
I don't even really care what the hell the answer was to this question. I don't even really care if I was right or wrong on this. All I cared about was that there is an official ruling, an actual answer to the question, and I know what that answer is now, and its implications to the current rules. That's all that matters; the thread is complete. And with the thread being complete, my presence (and for that matter, everyone else's presence) is no longer required. Time to bow out on this one and wait for the next big FAQ. (Because it's certainly not this.)
**EDIT** Typo fixes.
@DarkSol - Having read many of the comments since the FAQ, most of the ones that are querying the FAQ response are doing so because on a light reading it appears to be verisimilitude shattering.
As an example:
Light read interpretation only looking at the condition - Your character is practically doubled up with stomach cramps and yet you cannot drop whatever you are carrying and grab a bucket to heave into.
Heavy read interpretation after going through the all the associated movement rules in depth - Your character is practically doubled up with stomach cramps, you drop [place as a move action] your sword, provoking an opportunist attack and then reach for a bucket, provoking another attack. [The activity takes place over two rounds]
The fault doesn't lie with the people who don't understand the reasoning behind the FAQ and are struggling with the verisimilitude; because the PDT never explained the reasoning when answering the question.
@DarkSol - Having read many of the comments since the FAQ, most of the ones that are querying the FAQ response are doing so because on a light reading it appears to be verisimilitude shattering.
As an example:
Light read interpretation only looking at the condition - Your character is practically doubled up with stomach cramps and yet you cannot drop whatever you are carrying and grab a bucket to heave into.Heavy read interpretation after going through the all the associated movement rules in depth - Your character is practically doubled up with stomach cramps, you drop [place as a move action] your sword, provoking an opportunist attack and then reach for a bucket, provoking another attack. [The activity takes place over two rounds]
The fault doesn't lie with the people who don't understand the reasoning behind the FAQ and are struggling with the verisimilitude; because the PDT never explained the reasoning when answering the question.
I gave up on verisimilitude a long time ago. The game breaks more if you worry about it. Plus verisimilitude is a personal thing, we have the rule now, figure out your own way to make it fit verisimilitude if you care, or abandon the idea of it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread got me looking for ways to remove the nauseated condition. I found a few things that say they can be used for this purpose that don't seem to work.
The Inner Strength Persistence Inquisition is supposed to remove the nauseated condition (among other things), but it takes a swift action to activate so that will never happen.
The Cleanse spell is a personal spell which also will remove the nauseated condition, but it takes either a standard action or swift action (if quickened) to cast so it also doesn't work for that purpose.
The Nine Lives spell can be cast on you by someone else, but its ability to shake off the nauseated condition doesn't work since the target has to use an immediate action to activate it.
On the other hand Stillgut can be drunk as a move action, so it can help by giving you another save.
Recentering drone is y favorite all purpose i need to fix things for the party now spell.
Soothe syrup before you go into the dungeon, an ounce of prevention can be worth a pound of cure.
|
Like many, I am still confused by the FAQ in response to this question. Let's look at the PRD/RAW and see if we can make any sense of this.
An action's type essentially tells you how long the action takes to perform (within the framework of the 6-second combat round) and how movement is treated. There are six types of actions: standard actions, move actions, full-round actions, swift actions, immediate actions, and free actions.Reading for comprehension tells us that the action types line up along an axis from least amount of time: non action; to most amount of time: full round action.
The nauseated condition is clearly a physical impairment that limits you to a move action, the idea being you are unable to muster the effort needed for a standard action or more. It would be helpful if the PDT could explain how one can be limited to a move action but not, instead, perform any action that takes less time/effort than a move action in lieu of an actual move action. If nauseated were some weird spell or specific magic, then I could see it. But we've all been nauseated and been able to drop whatever we are holding while walking to the bathroom.
Because less time don't mean less effort for this game.
Using a spell or an ability as a quick action require more effort that doing a move action, even if the move action require more time.Let's make it this way. Real life: you are on the verge of vomiting or actually doing it.
You can slowly move a few feet? Yes
You can type something even barely coherent on a keyboard? No, even if typing require way less time than walking, hitting the right key and sequence of keys require more concentration.
Some free and swift action are good examples of something that could be done even when nauseated, but most uses of abilities and spells don't fall in that category. so we would need a list of free/swift actions that can be done while nauseated, but as we get more and more options with each book it would become obsolete in a brief time. For the dubious cases the best option is to have the GM decide if something can be done when you want to do it. When we are speaking of things like the paladin mercies, the best option is to clear that when the character take the ability.
About the alchemical remedies, extracts and potions: when you are vomiting taking a remedy that work if you shallow it don't work. Today we inject those remedies when we have this kind of situation. Nauseated isn't the light stages of motion sickness where you can eat a travelgum or equivalent, it is vomiting what you have eaten and when that has been expelled, dry vomiting.
Wismuth Salix work as a preventive against the nauseated condition, but you can't cure it ingesting something that work like semi mundane medicine.
An extract? Maybe, as a magic item it can bypass some limitation.
|
|
Then what does "you can, as the creature that initiated the grapple, release the grapple as a free action, removing the condition from both you and the target" mean? It seems like you're just giving people free actions for free.
It is used for the tactic:
- attack- apply some ability that allow you to grapple/grab it the attack succeed
- apply whatever damage you can apply with a successful grapple check (constrict or other abilities)
- release as a free action so that you can take Attack of Opportunity and you benefit from your full dexterity.
|
|
As a point, everyone who argues you can't talk because you're vomiting is ignoring the fact that this isn't what nauseated says. It says you experience "extreme distress", which could also very easily apply to very high degrees of pain or nausea without actually vomiting at all. Also, you don't just continually vomit; because of the way your throat works, you actually HAVE to stop vomiting in order to breath. Unless you honestly believe that by RAW a nauseated character must make constitution checks to not suffocate while under the effects of being nauseated. People who are vomiting often stop for several seconds at a time, allowing them to talk, cough, breathe, etc.
Gasping for breath and keeping the vomit down when you aren't actually vomiting is very different from speaking.
Extreme pain: generally you are unable to speak.|
|
@ Hugo Rune: Right, and all I said was that his argument had zero evidence and there was anti-precedence. If he does manage to pull one out of his arse, I can assure you that it's probably not intended to function that way.
People not liking an official ruling is one thing, and that's fine. People not liking an official ruling and then using it as a reason to not treat it as an official rule is another, and it's not acceptable on the Rules Question forums to do that. It's stupid, petty, misleads others, and quite frankly undermines the value of the PDT proposing FAQs here on the forums.
When this thread started, people formed sides, and would not be content with accepting the opposite argument until official clarification was given.
It's now been given.
And look what's happening. People not accepting the opposite argument being the official rule because it wasn't their argument or design philosphy. Why did we even ask for a FAQ, when people who wanted a FAQ, didn't actually want a FAQ? And instead wanted their interpretation to be THE interpretation, and every other interpretation to be wrong? What solace is there in this so-called "justice" that these complacent humans seek? None, I tell you. None.
They won't ever be happy or accepting of anything unless it is their own interpretation, and that's not a healthy attitude that should be brought into the Rules Question forums, especially in regards to obviously unclear subject matter.
At this point, I can almost understand why SKR decided to leave the PDT, and it's probably because of silly and absolutely ridiculous moments like these, where people demand answers, get them, and effectively defeat the entire purpose of the PDT providing answers to the forumites (and other players) by revealing they didn't want an answer, they just only wanted to listen what they wanted to hear, their own interpretation. That's just outright toxic behavior.
I don't even really care what the hell the answer was to this question. I don't even really...
Amen.
There is room for houserules, but the rule is clear.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It would be helpful if the PDT could explain how one can be limited to a move action but not, instead, perform any action that takes less time/effort than a move action in lieu of an actual move action.They can't.
They decided they didn't want people casting quickened fireballs while nauseated so they took away swift actions. Not sure about free actions; I guess they just took them all away to "err on the side of caution".
Casting a spell was already blanket forbidden under nauseated. I think they were more concerned with the prospect of dropping your sword, moaning "why, gods, why," and then clutching your stomach and collapsing in a fetal position.
All thankfully now forbidden to nauseated characters.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread got me looking for ways to remove the nauseated condition. I found a few things that say they can be used for this purpose that don't seem to work.
The Inner Strength Persistence Inquisition is supposed to remove the nauseated condition (among other things), but it takes a swift action to activate so that will never happen.
The Cleanse spell is a personal spell which also will remove the nauseated condition, but it takes either a standard action or swift action (if quickened) to cast so it also doesn't work for that purpose.
The Nine Lives spell can be cast on you by someone else, but its ability to shake off the nauseated condition doesn't work since the target has to use an immediate action to activate it.
On the other hand Stillgut can be drunk as a move action, so it can help by giving you another save.
Nine Lives and Inner Strength were functional rules before the FAQ and only now are nonfunctional, but Cleanse was always broken with regard to Nauseated, since it's personal and you could always not cast while nauseated. Presumably the writers and/or editors did not check the spell against all of the conditions they wanted it to affect.
The Nine Lives spell can be cast on you by someone else, but its ability to shake off the nauseated condition doesn't work since the target has to use an immediate action to activate it.You'll notice that the Shake Off ability from Nine Lives is also supposed to be capable of ending the dazed and cowering conditions, both of which prevent any actions whatsoever.
I suppose you could use "specific overrules general" here. You can't take a non-move action when nauseated or any action when dazed, but this spell says you can use it to negate them, so it's an exception.
|
|
I've experienced nausea before and had zero trouble talking.
Then we have a very different perception of the level of nausea implied by the nauseated condition.
First, as someone posted, nauseated explicitly excludes casting spells and concentration, so your response is invalid. Sorry, if you're going to tell me it takes more effort to say, "help" or "stop" than walking one's normal movement, than you're being intellectually dishonest.
It seem that you have missed all the supernatural an exceptional abilities that are swift action and several feat or class abilities that are swift or immediate actions.
To make one example from the CRB, with Mounted Combat you can make a check as an immediate action to avoid an hit on your mount. It isn't "casting spells" or "concentration", but the FAQ clearly explain that you can't try the check.There is a good number of abilities that require more effort than simply walking and that aren't "casting spells and concentration".
So, before accusing someone to be intellectually dishonest you should consider it there are actions that don't fall in the small category of "spells and concentration" and that require more effort than simply walking.
Nine Lives and Inner Strength were functional rules before the FAQ and only now are nonfunctional, but Cleanse was always broken with regard to Nauseated, since it's personal and you could always not cast while nauseated.This thread got me looking for ways to remove the nauseated condition. I found a few things that say they can be used for this purpose that don't seem to work.
The Inner Strength Persistence Inquisition is supposed to remove the nauseated condition (among other things), but it takes a swift action to activate so that will never happen.
The Cleanse spell is a personal spell which also will remove the nauseated condition, but it takes either a standard action or swift action (if quickened) to cast so it also doesn't work for that purpose.
The Nine Lives spell can be cast on you by someone else, but its ability to shake off the nauseated condition doesn't work since the target has to use an immediate action to activate it.
On the other hand Stillgut can be drunk as a move action, so it can help by giving you another save.
Right, I forgot about the blanket prohibition on spells. so Cleanse is doubly prohibited.
Presumably the writers and/or editors did not check the spell against all of the conditions they wanted it to affect.
Maybe. They may also have thrown nauseated onto the lists in case future game elements made it possible to remove it. I may have found such a case.
The Inner Strength Persistence Inquisition is a supernatural ability that requires a swift action to use, but Nauseated characters only have a move action. The Corset of Delicate Moves says
This tight-fitting garment of fine silk has thin bone ribbing sewn into it. Once per day as a move action, the wearer can take an additional swift action. This swift action can’t be used to cast a spell or spell-like ability. The shirt must be worn for 24 hours before this ability can be used.
I'm not sure, but I think this might let the Inquisitor use the Inquisition when Nauseated.