Reconcile it for yourself, you have the rule now, figure out to yourself how it makes sense, or not. But you have the rule.
In Pathfinder, a nauseated person can never tell someone that they are nauseated.
A DC 1 perception check would allow someone to identify if a person is nauseated. Noticing a visible person is nauseated would only be slightly harder than noticing they are there at all.
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.)
i fully agree with you. I don't understand how the PDT can truly believe you cannot drop what is in your hands when nauseated. That makes zero sense.
i fully agree with you. I don't understand how the PDT can truly believe you cannot drop what is in your hands when nauseated. That makes zero sense.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.)
You can drop what is in your hands using the manipulate an item move action, but it is a move action and incurs an AoO.
I haven't come across Vapours of Easy Breath, but I would assume that it could still be used, but it would take 3 rounds.
Round 1: Retrieve item
Round 2: Remove Stopper
Round 3: Place Upside down on ground
|
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.This is the part of my post you quoted:
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.Emphasis added. You misrepresented my question/point. My concern is not that the FAQ stops Rage or Lay on Hands, but that it stops someone from simply dropping a weapon or talking. In Pathfinder, a nauseated person can never tell someone that they are nauseated. Now, please tell me how that makes any sense?
So I'm asking the designers to reconcile this for us.
Speak of intellectual dishonesty. What you posted (that I cited, BTW):
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.
You are arguing or not that there is a order of "actions types" from "non action; to most amount of time: full round action."?
You are not arguing that you want an explanation of "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."?Are you not lumping all the action that take less time in the same less effort category?
What was my reply? "Because less time don't mean less effort for this game."
So your whole tirade is about a reply that isn't what you are misconstruction.
You want a list of "allowed free actions"? Ask or it or make one as a GM. But when you make blanket statements you get replies about blanket statements. You didn't say "some of the actions that require less time than a movement actions require less effort too", you argued that a "less time/effort" action category already exist.
|
|
The nauseated FAQ seems to introduce an exception to the usual rule on limited actions;
"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)."
That said, I see no reason that you couldn't use a move action to do something which can usually be accomplished more quickly. The action types are stated to represent different amounts of time, with 'move' actions representing more time then 'free' and 'swift' actions. Normally, you could speak as a free action... but if you're nauseated you need to concentrate on not throwing up and it becomes a move action.
i fully agree with you. I don't understand how the PDT can truly believe you cannot drop what is in your hands when nauseated. That makes zero sense.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.)
I'm pretty sure its one of the things that didn't get considered. Just let the players do things this obviously wasn't meant for and don't worry about it.
|
|
You are not arguing that you want an explanation of "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."?That's exactly what I am asking for. Tbe entire debate since the FAQ is trying to understand how a physical condition can single out free, swift, immediate actions that take less time and effort than walking. Your failing to understand that is not intellectual dishonesty on my part.
"/" isn't the same thing as "and". Generally it is used for "either" of two choices. "And" and "or" are two very different operators.
In a home game, this isn't a problem. But in PFS, you run into GMs who get confused and default to RAW even if they know it makes no sense.I'm pretty sure its one of the things that didn't get considered. Just let the players do things this obviously wasn't meant for and don't worry about it.i fully agree with you. I don't understand how the PDT can truly believe you cannot drop what is in your hands when nauseated. That makes zero sense.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.)
how often are you nauseated in PFS, and why would it be super horrible to not have any free or swift actions? Oh no, I can't drop my sword, this is a much bigger problem than anything I've ever dealt with before. The comfort of knowing I could drop it at any moment was the only thing keeping me going.
|
Stinking Clouds are fairly common in PFS.
As an example, my cleric uses a longspear. He also has the Accelerated Drinker trait. If he is wielding the longspear and becomes nauseated, and he can't take a free action to let go of the longspear with one hand, then it makes things more problematic.
No free action:
Round 1) Use a Move action to take a hand off his longspear (or to put it down if the GM rules you can't do a Free action as a Move action).
Round 2) Use a Move action to take out a potion of Remove Sickness.
Round 3) Use Accelerated Drinker to drink the potion as a Move action.
With free actions:
Round 1) Free action to remove a hand from the longspear. Move action to take out a potion of Remove Sickness.
Round 2) Use Accelerated Drinker to drink the potion as a Move action.
So it does make a difference in some specialized situations.
The FAQ is pretty clear, though I would imagine any GM would use their best judgement.
|
Indeed. My answer to stinking cloud used to be:
Free: remove one hand from my 2H weapon
Move: draw Vapors of Easy Breath
Free: drop the glass jar, shattering it. I and other nearby people get a new saving throw against the cloud.
Or alternatively, I'd use a prehensile tail to grab it as a swift action. Which isn't possible anymore at all.
Being nauseated doesn't mean you're vomiting.
Actually, I think the Nauseated condition DOES mean you're vomiting, or at least so close to it that it takes nearly all your concentration to hold back.
Sure, the general definition of the word doesn't mean that, but when people are generally nauseated, then can still do things. Walk, talk, pick things up, put them down, drop them, quote Shakespeare, go to work, whatever. It's unpleasant but it's not crippling.
The Nauseated condition is crippling. It takes away your actions and leaves you unable to do anything but simple movements.
The only way I can reconcile the word "nauseated" with being unable to do almost anything is to be so nauseated that you're vomiting or focusing all your effort on not vomiting.
So while it doesn't use the word "vomiting", it does say "stomach distress". Now imagine you're in a battle, using your sword, fighting some other guy who is trying to KILL you with an axe - just how much "stomach distress" would it take for you to stop fighting and basically let him kill you? (yes, you can still defend while Nauseated, but you can't hurt the guy or get away from him, so it's just a matter of time until he kills you).
I'm pretty sure the vomiting is heavily implied; it bust be more than just a stomach ache.
|
|
When one is about to vomit, all you can do is basically try to run to a sink or toilet (unless you don't care about the walls or floors).
Which begs the question: can you hurl in your enemy's face to make him nauseated as well?
:P
(sorry I had to go there, but it *would* be an effective way to shut down an axe attacker for a few seconds! why waste the opportunity? LOL)
When one is about to vomit, all you can do is basically try to run to a sink or toilet (unless you don't care about the walls or floors).
Which begs the question: can you hurl in your enemy's face to make him nauseated as well?
:P
(sorry I had to go there, but it *would* be an effective way to shut down an axe attacker for a few seconds! why waste the opportunity? LOL)
I don't think it would work because deliberately aiming your vomit at a foe's face would be an attack with an improvised weapon, which is definitely a standard action.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think it would work because deliberately aiming your vomit at a foe's face would be an attack with an improvised weapon, which is definitely a standard action.When one is about to vomit, all you can do is basically try to run to a sink or toilet (unless you don't care about the walls or floors).
Which begs the question: can you hurl in your enemy's face to make him nauseated as well?
:P
(sorry I had to go there, but it *would* be an effective way to shut down an axe attacker for a few seconds! why waste the opportunity? LOL)
Oddly, aiming at a toilet is also an attack against an unattended object, so it's still a standard action. Apparently, when you're nauseated enough to pray at the porcelain altar, you can't...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Apparently, when you're nauseated enough to pray at the porcelain altar, you can't...
That's why it is a prayer. Only divine intervention, circumventing the rules of the universe, will help you now. [/Humor]
Oddly, aiming at a toilet is also an attack against an unattended object, so it's still a standard action. Apparently, when you're nauseated enough to pray at the porcelain altar, you can't...
Good intentions count with the porcelain god.
Less so with the cleaning staff
In Pathfinder, a nauseated person can never tell someone that they are nauseated.A DC 1 perception check would allow someone to identify if a person is nauseated. Noticing a visible person is nauseated would only be slightly harder than noticing they are there at all.
Hey, blind guy, roll a perception check....
There's a horrible wretching sound next to you, and your boots seem to be filling with some sort of goop
|
|
Being nauseated doesn't mean you're vomiting.Actually, I think the Nauseated condition DOES mean you're vomiting, or at least so close to it that it takes nearly all your concentration to hold back.
Sure, the general definition of the word doesn't mean that, but when people are generally nauseated, then can still do things. Walk, talk, pick things up, put them down, drop them, quote Shakespeare, go to work, whatever. It's unpleasant but it's not crippling.
The Nauseated condition is crippling. It takes away your actions and leaves you unable to do anything but simple movements.
The only way I can reconcile the word "nauseated" with being unable to do almost anything is to be so nauseated that you're vomiting or focusing all your effort on not vomiting.
So while it doesn't use the word "vomiting", it does say "stomach distress". Now imagine you're in a battle, using your sword, fighting some other guy who is trying to KILL you with an axe - just how much "stomach distress" would it take for you to stop fighting and basically let him kill you? (yes, you can still defend while Nauseated, but you can't hurt the guy or get away from him, so it's just a matter of time until he kills you).
I'm pretty sure the vomiting is heavily implied; it bust be more than just a stomach ache.
The English at Agincourt were suffering of dysentery, to the point that some of them cut the rear of their trouser open to be able to evacuate while fighting (at least, that is what some tale say), but they were still fighting. With that precedent to make a character totally unable to attack the nauseated condition should be really serious.
Even if this tale is false it give a "reasonable" yardstick against which we can measure the distress our heroic character would suffer before he is unable to attack.
If you are expelling something from either end of your body, you are getting relief and should not be nauseated next round.
If you are expelling something from either end of your body, you are getting relief and should not be nauseated next round.
I'm genuinely happy for you that your experience with expelling contents of either end is always satisfied with a single 6-second visit to the water closet.
For me, it's often multiple rounds in that WC. You know, like how most effects that cause the Nauseated condition come in multi-round durations but rarely longer. During the duration you're expelling, or at least very close to it and struggling to hold it back, and at the end of the duration you get that relief and are not nauseated the next round.
See Monty Python's the Meaning of Life for what would happen if you assume that you are puking each round that you are nauseated. By the 3rd round, players might have good reason to bring up that vomiting scene. In real life, you would probably have traded the nauseated condition for some other negative condition, as at that point you would have some relief but not yet be able to act normally.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You don't have to attack - use the rules for missing with a splash weapon, roll a d8, and find out which way the bile blasts.
You don't have to attack - use the rules for missing with a splash weapon, roll a d8, and find out which way the bile blasts.
I think a miss is just a failed attack. I'm not sure how to use a "miss" result of something that wasn't an "attack" to begin with. If you didn't attack, then you didn't miss.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you are expelling something from either end of your body, you are getting relief and should not be nauseated next round.
You can still try to empty everything from both ends at once long after you have succeeded.
Never. Going. Back. To. Africa.
We were clearly in houserules territory, at the point you are trying to nauseated your enemies with the vomit that came from your own nausea. Having an equal chance of blasting a buddy as one would have frothing a foe seemed like a good start.
|
|
If you are expelling something from either end of your body, you are getting relief and should not be nauseated next round.
You can still try to empty everything from both ends at once long after you have succeeded.
Never. Going. Back. To. Africa.
You can get that result even with a acute appendicitis.
Nauseated absolutely does not mean you're vomiting. Italicizing "condition" doesn't change this.
I italicized condition to emphasize that Nauseated is a game term, not a dictionary definition. Nauseated in the dictionary does not imply vomiting. Nauseated as a Pathfinder condition definitely does.
The vomiting is not implied because if it were, you couldn't move
I'm sorry you can't move when you're vomiting (or close to it, as I've said many times). Me, when I'm about to vomit, I move QUICKLY to the nearest toilet to minimize the mess. I guess you cannot do that?
or you'd be forced to drop what ever you are holding
No, I usually set down whatever I'm holding, not drop it, though I am sure I could if I wanted to - but I'm definitely not "forced" to drop anything. I guess you are?
and lie prone.
Wow, I guess you vomit very differently than I do. Or anyone else I know. Kneeling at the toilet (not lying prone) or even standing on my feet while I bend over. I'm certainly not "forced" to lie prone when I vomit. I guess you are?
So it seems you and I have very different experiences with being Nauseated to the point of vomiting. You are unable to move and must drop everything and lie down right where you are and just vomit all over yourself, while I run quickly to a bathroom and either kneel or stand, without being forced to drop anything at all.
Weird how different we are.
Or, you know, the rules would actually state you throw up and they wouldn't call it "nauseated" because nauseated does not mean you throw up.
No, maybe the authors were trying to avoid being gross about it. Like several posters in this thread have used euphemisms instead of using the v-word. When the authors said "stomach distress" and said "you cannot take any actions except a move action" they were politely saying "all you can do is move and vomit" without being vulgar.
Lots of people get nauseous and never throw up.
You're right. That's exactly why I italicized the word condition to differentiate real-world nausea from the Pathfinder game term. Thank you for illustrating my point, even if it seems to have been lost on you.
The rules do not imply.
They do. Very strongly. See above.
The rules attempt to lay things out in an unambiguous and definitive manner. The rules are intended to be functional and actionable. Implying that there is some mechanical outcome that is not explicitly called for or that explicitly requires adjudication is 100% contrary to the game rules paradigm under which Paizo operates.
There is no mechanic involved with vomiting, in the real world or in the Pathfinder game. There is a mechanic involved with being Nauseated, but adding vomit to the mechanic doesn't change anything. It's not difficult terrain. It doesn't create a stinking cloud. It cannot be used as a projectile attack. No mechanic at all.
The Nauseated condition has all the mechanics and a strong but politely worded implication that you're vomiting (for no effect).
It mean you are sick to your stomach,
When I'm "sick to my stomach", I can still walk, talk, read, climb, swing a stick (or sword), or do many things that Pathfinder says I cannot do while I have the Nauseated condition - Pathfinder says I can only do the first one on that abbreviated list. IRL, I can do all that and more, even when I'm sick to my stomach.
But I cannot do all those things WHILE I'm vomiting.
Admittedly, I probably don't do some of things well when I'm "sick to my stomach". I don't swing weapons well when I'm "sick to my stomach." In fact, I think I take a -2 penalty to my attack rolls when I'm "sick to my stomach".
I wish Pathfinder had a condition for being so sick that I take a -2 penalty on attack rolls and skills and such.
Oh wait! They do! It's the Sickened condition.
Now I understand the source of your misunderstanding: you have been thinking of the Sickened condition this whole time. Everything you said is right, if you apply it to the Sickened condition. But most of what you said is inapplicable to the Nauseated condition.
The rules don't tell us how sick, so we have to infer.
No we don't. See above.
But the degree is irrelevant because we aren't making judgment calls on anything. The rules tells us what is allowed and what is not.
I'm not either.
What you call "sick to my stomach" is what Pathfinder calls the Sickened condition.
What Pathfinder calls the Nauseated condition is when you go way past sickened and can do nothing but move. I call that vomiting. You probably call that vomiting, too (once you're clear on the difference between the Sickened condition and the Nauseated condition. Or at least, everyone else most likely does, even if you don't agree.
As someone that's the son of a doctor...serious stomach distress is not just vomiting. It can also be something like an ulcer or other serious condition. It can also be serious constipation. Distress in the intestines hurts just as badly.
I'm sorry you can't move when you're vomiting (or close to it, as I've said many times). Me, when I'm about to vomit, I move QUICKLY to the nearest toilet to minimize the mess. I guess you cannot do that?
Freshmen.....
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.
No mention of vomit.
The rules are pretty clear on this, I don't understand the debate.
You can take only a single move action. That is all.
This condition is BRUTAL!
If you are expelling something from either end of your body, you are getting relief and should not be nauseated next round.
When was the last time you were seriously upchucking sick? Did emptying out your guts in the toilet take less than twelve seconds?
When was the last time you were seriously upchucking sick? Did emptying out your guts in the toilet take less than twelve seconds?If you are expelling something from either end of your body, you are getting relief and should not be nauseated next round.
It lasts as long as it lasts... durations are determined by the game rules. ;)
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.
No mention of vomit.
The rules are pretty clear on this, I don't understand the debate.You can take only a single move action. That is all.
This condition is BRUTAL!
Because when following the letter of the rules leads to insanity usually you don't wind up following the rules. I'm puking so hard i can't drop my sword certainly qualifies.
Because when following the letter of the rules leads to insanity usually you don't wind up following the rules. I'm puking so hard i can't drop my sword certainly qualifies.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.
No mention of vomit.
The rules are pretty clear on this, I don't understand the debate.You can take only a single move action. That is all.
This condition is BRUTAL!
Meh... I would rather fail a Fort save and be Nauseated... if the alternative is failing the Fort save and being DEAD.
Whether you puke or not is irrelevant, this condition is harsh, but not as harsh as the other things that might happen with that failed save.
For the record, in our games, we have our characters puking if this occurs... (mechanically makes no difference, just fits the idea of being SO HARSHLY AFFECTED).
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread is making me nauseous.
Also, some of it sounds like an episode of House.
"So, the patient can walk, and he can get out of bed, but he finds it hard to let go of objects."
"Loss of manual dexterity? Arthritis?"
"But when we asked him to mount a horse and then reload a light crossbow, he managed it just fine. It took him twelve seconds."
"Is he vomiting?"
"Not sure. I asked him, but he couldn't talk."
"...lupus?"
This thread is making me nauseous.
Also, some of it sounds like an episode of House.
"So, the patient can walk, and he can get out of bed, but he finds it hard to let go of objects."
"Loss of manual dexterity? Arthritis?"
"But when we asked him to mount a horse and then reload a light crossbow, he managed it just fine. It took him twelve seconds."
"Is he vomiting?"
"Not sure. I asked him, but he couldn't talk."
"...lupus?"
*shrugs*
Would you rather the GM just killed your PC on the failed save then?