Undine's Curse states:
"The target loses its body's natural ability to breathe automatically. As long as it remains conscious and is able to take physical actions, it keeps breathing and is able to function normally. If it is ever unconscious (including sleeping) or unable to take physical actions, it stops breathing and begins to suffocate. Creatures that do not have to breathe are immune to this spell."
Would the Dazed condition prevent a creature from taking a physical action?
"Physical Action" is never defined in the rules (probably because it's assumed to be so common-sense-worthy that they didn't think it needed to be defined), BUT, reading through several entries which list "physical action", it seems to be Standard, Move, Swift, or Immediate Actions which require some manner of movement or other.
A good rule of thumb would be: if it's not a Free Action, it's a "physical action"
"Physical Action" is never defined in the rules (probably because it's assumed to be so common-sense-worthy that they didn't think it needed to be defined), BUT, reading through several entries which list "physical action", it seems to be Standard, Move, Swift, or Immediate Actions which require some manner of movement or other.
A good rule of thumb would be: if it's not a Free Action, it's a "physical action"
There are plenty of free actions that are clearly physical. For example, Drop Weapon.
I'd argue that talking is a physical action as well.
I'm asking because my group got into an argument (not a serious argument) over whether or not Dazed prevents physical actions. The argument against Dazed preventing physical actions was that you keep your Shield and Dex AC, as in you can still dodge and block. The argument for Dazed preventing physical actions is that the rules outright say that you can take no actions.
Which one makes more sense? You can still make saves while unconscious, so the idea that you're "defending yourself" while dazed would extend to a creature "defending itself" while unconscious.
I'm asking because my group got into an argument (not a serious argument) over whether or not Dazed prevents physical actions. The argument against Dazed preventing physical actions was that you keep your Shield and Dex AC, as in you can still dodge and block. The argument for Dazed preventing physical actions is that the rules outright say that you can take no actions.
Which one makes more sense? You can still make saves while unconscious, so the idea that you're "defending yourself" while dazed would extend to a creature "defending itself" while unconscious.
Except than an unconscious creature is "helpless" and hence vulnerable to a coup de grace, while a merely dazed creature is explicitly not "helpless." In fact, "helpless" is officially the term used for a creature unable to defend itself ("completely at an opponent's mercy").
I think that since a dazed creature can explicitly defend itself normally (it doesn't even take a penalty), it's still taking physical actions like moving its shield around.
Dazed seems to be something less disabling than Staggered, in that it doesn't allow you to actively make active physical actions, but still lets you react.
It's possibly something like having the wind knocked out of you.
So, helpess creature who (on a lucky roll) passes a Reflex, means it successfully defended itself? A dazed creature is not "explicitly" able to defend itself because the wording doesn't say "The creature can take no action, but it can defend itself."
Also, you don't threaten when Dazed because you can't take a standard action to attack adjacent squares, so it can't defend itself normally.
And "use a shield to defend yourself" isn't an action to begin with. An example of some that requires a physical action is a Cleric's Channel Energy. They need to be physically able to present their holy symbol to channel (a free action as part the standard to activate the channel). Another example would be opening and reading a scroll to cast from it. Making a Perception check would count, as you have physically move your eyes towards what you're trying to perceive before you can mentally interpret the images.
Even sticking with the shield angle, a stunned creature wearing a buckler would still keep their Shield AC because the buckler would be strapped to their arm. Are you saying that the stunned creature with a buckler can actively defend itself with its shield because they didn't drop it?
Effectively, with Dazed, you cannnot intentionally take any actions. Even if you try to use to angle that it keeps its bonuses as it being to take some actions to defend itself, the creature would not make those actions intentionally, meaning it's not choosing to defend itself. It's "defending itself" through basic instinct, accident, or just plain luck. In other words, it's not "taking an action" to do anything, they just didn't get hit.
The main things to look at are the phrase "take a physical action", then the "Action Types" in combat section of the Core Rulebook. Lastly, and mostly importantly, find examples of a "physical action" in the books.
"Action Types:
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."
From the Find the Path spell:
"The spell enables the subject to sense the correct direction that will eventually lead it to its destination, indicating at appropriate times the exact path to follow or physical actions to take. For example, the spell enables the subject to sense what cavern corridor to take when a choice presents itself..."
When put together, a taking physical action requires the ability to make decisions and physically act. "Keeping Shield AC and Dexertity bonuses" doesn't require an action, therefore, Dazed prevents a creature from taking physical actions.
Last bit before I stop arguing with myself: If using Shield AC and Dex bonuses require actions, then Dazed would prevent a creature from using them.
The exact wording of the Dazed condition:
"The creature is unable to act normally. A dazed creature can take no actions, but has no penalty to AC.
A dazed condition typically lasts 1 round."
"Penalty to AC" means "a minus to AC", like the stunned condition grants. Being unable to utilize a bonus isn't a by-the-book penalty, even thoigh it effectively works like a penalty. Being unable to take an action to defend yourself, using the the idea that defending yourself is an action, means that you can't defend yourself when Dazed, so the "defending yourself bonuses" of Shield AC, Dodge AC, Dex bonuses don't apply. That seems excessive an beyond the scope of what Dazed is supposed to do.
I would assume "unable to take physical action" would mean something like hold person or something that causes you to be helpless would be required (though being helpless wouldn't be the only thing). Dazed, while preventing you from taking actions, doesn't mean you can't "act physically" (which really isn't defined). You're not flat footed, meaning you still move to defend yourself. You just don't have the ability to mount an offense (perhaps keeping your defense up takes everything you've got because you were hit so hard that your vision blurred and your ears are ringing).
Don't like physical action to the action types of the game, I don't think they're intended to be the same thing.
Physical actions absolutely are akin to the combat actions of full-round, standard, move, swift, and free actions. Pull an example from the rules where a physical action doesn't have an equivalent combat action. I've already pointed out that Channel Energy is effectively a mental action that requires a physical action to utilize (a pinned Cleric can't Channel Energy because he's unable to physically present his holy symbol, but he could still cast a Still spell, if he had one prepared.)
Not being flat-footed while dazed doen't mean anything because you're not flat-footed when stunned (you maintain your Shield bonuses from sources like the Shield spell or a buckler, since you can't drop those). Even a paralyzed or helpless creature doesn't lose an Shield bonus they have. And those conditions don't prevent Reflex saves, as I've before.
"Taking an action" means choosing to do something and doing it. Again, if defending yourself is an action, then you can't do it while Dazed. The rule explicitly states "take no action." By saying there's an action to defend yourself, it opens up the flood gates of "What kind of action is it?", "Tied-up creatures should get their full Dex and Dodge bonuses because they can still take actions," and other nonsense. We move into silliness such as dazed preventing a free action knowledge check, but letting you choose to block with your shield, which doesn't make sense. If a creature is aware enough to think about blocking, why wouldn't they be able to recall that red dragons breathe fire?
As 'physical action' is called out separately from the normal 'action' types in the game, AND due to the nature of the ability itself, we've got to rely more on normal parsing.
Dazed means you're doing the equivalent of going 'duh ... ' for your turn. You've forgotten about what you intended to do for some reason (like getting hit with a Dazing Assault, somehow). Your body is still moving around (as evinced by not losing dodge bonuses or any other bits of AC). So you're still doing some physical action.
Now let's stun you. Little more severe, this, but you're still blinking like an idiot after getting slugged by the monk over there. You have a penalty, you drop your stuff, plus your Dex bonus to AC is gone, but remember that means you'd be at a 0, and an immobile object has a Dex bonus of -5 to AC. Still able to do at least something.
Let's go farther. You're now tied up. You can still take some action to struggle, whimper, and beg for mercy, but overall you're helpless. STILL able to do stuff, even though you're rocking that -5 Dex penalty to AC.
And the capper to what must be an awful day for you. Hold person! You're paralysed. No actions except purely mental ones. Which means if you've got this lousy curse going, I hope you have someone nearby with a ventilator.
What specific actions can a Dazed or Stunned creature perform? As I've said, if "Having a Dex bonus" counts being able to move, then moving is an action which you can't do because you can't take actions when dazed. This starting to become a circular argument. Would a Dazed Wizard be able to perform the verbal and somatic components of a spell while Dazed, but not cast the actual spell?
Saying that you can take "some actions" while Dazed runs directly contrary to the explicitly and plainly spelled out "no actions" written in the Dazed condition.
Also, being tied up doesn't prevent a creature from taking physical actions, like a Strength check or Escape Artist check. Dazed and Stunned would obviously prevent those.
Ultimately, we're running into a RAW vs RAI issue. In every condition listed, you keep your Shield bonus, no one would argue that a paralyzed creature is actively blocking with its shield.
As I've said, if "Having a Dex bonus" counts being able to move, then moving is an action which you can't do because you can't take actions when dazed. This starting to become a circular argument. Would a Dazed Wizard be able to perform the verbal and somatic components of a spell while Dazed, but not cast the actual spell?
Defending yourself is not an action. And I think at this point there's more of an intent to break the system with forcing 'physical action', referring to 'the ability to try to move your body', with 'action' as defined in the combat section, and at that point the analysis snaps. There is no 'physical action' in the combat system; therefore, this phrase does NOT parse according to those rules. After all, a stilled, silent spell with no material components apparently MAY be cast when you're held, or anything else that's on the equivalence of 'think at it'.
Further attempting to shoehorn 'physical action' into the combat action economy is ... well, honestly, not RAW if that's what you want to hear most. Unless you can show how 'physical action' integrates into everything when purely mental actions span the whole range.
Bottom line: 'physical action' is NOT part of the 'standard/move/full-round action' set. It MUST be judged separately, in accordance with the English-language convention of 'is your body able to be controlled by you?', and not 'may you take a standard/free/full-round action?'.
Did you read the spell "Find the Path"?
From the Find the Path spell:
"The spell enables the subject to sense the correct direction that will eventually lead it to its destination, indicating at appropriate times the exact path to follow or physical actions to take. For example, the spell enables the subject to sense what cavern corridor to take when a choice presents itself..."
Also, Dazed prevents you from TRYING to move your body, obvious by the "take no actions" part. At best, you're not in control of how your body moves. This goes back to being able to make Reflex saves while Helpless; if the DC is under 15 or you roll a 20, you can possibly make the save even though you're Helpless. That doesn't mean you "took a physical action to defend yourself," it means the stars aligned and the attack missed you.
Physical actions are referenced in other places, as well. By saying that Dazed doesn't prevent physical actions, you're practically suggesting that dazed person can navigate a path and take the appropriate actions to overcome any barriers in their way (walking, climbing, opening a door, speaking a password, etc). A creature that can't attack, move, focus or otherwise think clearly can still walk up to a trapped door and open it because dazed doesn't prevent them from doing so. Is this what you're saying? At this point, you need comb through the rules, spells, and equipment as I did to find something to support your claim.
Also, I'm not trying to "shoehorn" anything. You obviously haven't read my points or you're attempting only address the parts in which you think you can counter. I've already given several examples of physical actions and mental actions.
Bottom line: You're wrong because you haven't provided anything to support your point other than your opinion. "English language convention" isn't relevant because the rules don't exactly follow "English language convention" (in real life, do you "take an action" or "make an action?"), not to mention that different cultures have different nuances for English that don't apply to Pathfinder in the slightest. Sticking with the examples from the written rules keeps us away from arguments that aren't relevant.
The bottom line is that 'physical action' and what dazed considers to be an action are both not well defined in the rules, so you aren't going to come to a RAW conclusion. Instead you need to make a common-sense ruling.
Is dazed intended to be a condition similar to unconcious, hold person etc which would prevent you from breathing with undine's curse? I would say no - the condition is nasty enough as-is and the poorly defined 'take no actions' is not precedent enough given that you are clearly capable of taking some physical actions whilst dazed (defending yourself, for example). You don't fall prone while dazed so I can't imagine why you would no longer be able to breathe.
However, there's nothing to prevent you ruling it as yes either, given daze's language and if you aren't convinced by the above argument. It would be a DM call. I don't think you are going to get a more definitive answer than that.
*edit*
Your argument above re find the path is a false dichotomy. There's a third option: That some physical actions are also actions in the strict rules-sense (IE move, standard etc) and some are not. Dazed could certainly prevent you from using physical actions such as climbing as part of find the path that are also 'rules' actions - there's no flaw of logic there.
The confusion comes from the fact that something can be an action and not-an-action at the same time in the 3.P ruleset. We don't know what meaning of 'action' dazed is using, so we have to make a judgement call.
The main problem with the "defending yourself" argument is that there is nothing in the rules (at least, nothing I found) that even supports that as physical action. As I've already said, you can't make choices when Dazed. Period. That's the clear intent of it. Dazed is obviously supposed to be a less severe version of Stunned. if "defending yourself" is an action, then you clearly can't do it while Dazed; there's nothing ambiguous about the "A dazed creature can take no actions" part. At best, the "creature is unable to act normally" part means you can't technically defend yourself because you can't control your actions, since you can't make any. Any "dodging" you do from being Dazed is from the momentum of your swaying and stumbling.
Also, Unconscious creatures can breathe just fine. The reason why a Dazed creature wouldn't able to breathe is the same reason why an Unconscious creature wouldn't be able to breathe: It failed its Will save vs Undine's Curse ;-)
Now, saying that "physical action" is poorly defined when you're presented with obvious examples of physical actions (the type of actions need to dungeon crawl) shows that your position shouldn't be given much weight. The flaw in saying that some physical actions have "combat action" equivalents, but others don't is threefold: Any physical action that requires pathfinding (as determined by the Fnd the Path spell) has an equivalent "combat action," nothing has been found in the rules that support it, and there are several instances that blatantly contradict that position (such as Paralyzed specifically calling physical actions as being barred because you can still make mental actions; you can't make mental OR physical actions while Dazed or Stunned)
If you're going say that "defending yourself" counts as a physical action, then you need to show one of several things:
1. Show something in the rules that implies a Dazed creature can still defend itself.
2. Find something that implies or states that a physical action isn't limited to an "action" as previously defined in the rules.
3. Find something in the rules that mentions "defending yourself" in relation to be able to act.
I hate to sound like a jerk, but stating what you think, what you assume, or how you guess is worthless without pointing to something in the rules to support it. The reason I posted in the Rules Questions area was to find something in the rules that could counter my interpretation. I already know what I believe, but I'm fully willing to accept that my belief is incorrect, if there's something written to invalidate my point.
|
The bottom line is that Undine's Curse is out of line with the game mechanics and a very badly thought spell, especially as a 1st level spell.
It will kill you unless yo do <something not defined by the rules> that can be stopped with <system not adequately defined by the rules>.
That spell could work in a more free form game, not in Pathfinder. Here the GM would be constantly adjudicating how it interact with other effects.
If you are the target of sleep you stop breathing, but that is enough to wake you up? I would say yes, but someone can disagree.
Stunned? Dazed? If you are forced to think consciously to the act of berating you would be unable to do that.
Then there is the phrase:
If it is ever unconscious (including sleeping) or unable to take physical actions, it stops breathing and begins to suffocate.
As written the target move immediately to the second part of the suffocation rules, he don't get to hold his breath.
SuffocationA character who has no air to breathe can hold her breath for 2 rounds per point of Constitution. If a character takes a standard or full-round action, the remaining duration that the character can hold her breath is reduced by 1 round. After this period of time, the character must make a DC 10 Constitution check in order to continue holding her breath. The check must be repeated each round, with the DC increasing by +1 for each previous success.
When the character fails one of these Constitution checks, she begins to suffocate. In the first round, she falls unconscious (0 hit points). In the following round, she drops to –1 hit points and is dying. In the third round, she suffocates.
Being killed by a fist level spell and a cantrip isn't fun.
The description for the Paralyzed condition states a paralyzed creature has effective Str and Dex scores of 0 and is helpless, but can still take purely mental actions, meaning that it is not unconcious. The description of the Strength ability score states that a creature with 0 Strength is too weak to move in any way and is unconscious. The description of the Dexterity ability score states that a creature with 0 Dexterity is incapable of moving and effectively immobile, though it doesn't mean they're unconcious. Therefore, I think it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that being unable to take physical action would mean approximating the effects of that condition (being unconcious and/or having an effective Strength of 0; whether an effective Dexterity of 0 would count is less clear).
Regardless, as per Suffocation rules, you're not killing anyone like that in 1 round no matter what condition counts for it. Also, even though they were likely already unconscious, it wouldn't be caused by the suffocation, so I would apply the 'common sense ruling' rule that people oft ignore, and rule that that they would NOT immediately drop to -1 hit points, and that the suffocation instead would begin at the first Constitution check (the one at DC 10). Not to mention ruling otherwise would also be entirely broken for both PCs and NPCs alike. Would you like it if someone walked up, cast Hold Person from a ways away, moved closer and cast Undine's Curse, and you suffocated to death in 12 seconds (or 24 seconds minimum if you count the 2 rounds to cast the spells, unless one is Quickened or there's a second caster, meaning 18 seconds minimum including casting)?
It seems like the most reasonable ruling is that making a "physical actions" require the ability to take an action, so anything that would prevent you from taking any action fulfills the criterion set forth by Undine's Curse. Stunned, Dazed, and Cowering prevent a creature from taking any actions whatsoever, so those would cause a creature under the effect of Undine's Curse to begin suffocating.
The main problem with the "defending yourself" argument is that there is nothing in the rules (at least, nothing I found) that even supports that as physical action.
Until you find where the rules define 'physical action', ALL your conditional statements are invalid.
As I've already said, you can't make choices when Dazed. Period. That's the clear intent of it. Dazed is obviously supposed to be a less severe version of Stunned. if "defending yourself" is an action, then you clearly can't do it while Dazed; there's nothing ambiguous about the "A dazed creature can take no actions" part.
Failure to define 'defending yourself' as part of action economy, entire conditional statement fails.
At best, the "creature is unable to act normally" part means you can't technically defend yourself because you can't control your actions, since you can't make any. Any "dodging" you do from being Dazed is from the momentum of your swaying and stumbling.
Also, Unconscious creatures can breathe just fine. The reason why a Dazed creature wouldn't able to breathe is the same reason why an Unconscious creature wouldn't be able to breathe: It failed its Will save vs Undine's Curse ;-)
Now, saying that "physical action" is poorly defined when you're presented with obvious examples of physical actions (the type of actions need to dungeon crawl) shows that your position shouldn't be given much weight. The flaw in saying that some physical actions have "combat action" equivalents, but others don't is threefold: Any physical action that requires pathfinding (as determined by the Fnd the Path spell)
Reviewed spell. No mention of action economy aside from casting time. Irrelevant; remainder of claim skipped to allow room.
If you're going say that "defending yourself" counts as a physical action, then you need to show one of several things:
1. Show something in the rules that implies a Dazed creature can still defend itself.
2. Find something that implies or states that a physical action isn't limited to an "action" as previously defined in the rules.
3. Find something in the rules that mentions "defending yourself" in relation to be able to act.
1. No loss of Dex bonus to AC. Unless YOU can argue that dex 18 stumbles better than dex 10.
2. Attack of Opportunity.3. Definition of dazed: no penalty to AC.
Oh, and if you're going to say that it doesn't, I need to see YOUR rules justification on YOUR position.
I hate to sound like a jerk, but stating what you think, what you assume, or how you guess is worthless without pointing to something in the rules to support it. The reason I posted in the Rules Questions area was to find something in the rules that could counter my interpretation. I already know what I believe, but I'm fully willing to accept that my belief is incorrect, if there's something written to invalidate my point.
Complete failure to not sound like a jerk at this point.
Spells don't define rules outside of the scope of the spell itself.
Not only that, Find the Path wouldn't offer anything of value if it would be a proper rules source relating to the question at hand. It doesn't define "physical actions" in any shape or form. It doesn't even offer the slightest hint of a definition.
