Reactions and Stunned


Rules Discussion

51 to 100 of 110 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Take a look then for yourself. I will agree that the page number does seem to be incorrect, but where did this come from then? Especially given how it exactly describes how you gain and lose actions... you know, like the gaining and losing actions sidebar should.

Since Archives of Nethys are the official SRD for Pathfinder 2.0 I would probably trust them to be relatively correct.

And no, that is not the Subordinate actions sidebar, I checked.

Paralysis and Stunned work more similarly than you give them credit for. In fact, the first detriment they each give you is the same. You can't act. It's only the details that are different.

Paralysis stipulates that you can in fact make recall knowledge checks or mental checks etc... and Stunned stipulates that on your turn when you regain actions you reduce the number of actions you gain by your Stunned modifier. You then reduce that stunned modifier by the number of actions you lost. If that modifier reaches 0, you are no longer stunned.

If condition A says you can't act, and condition B says you can't act, how is that different?

So again, to summarize: You become stunned. You cannot act, you cannot make Reactions. This occurs even if it is during your turn.

Your turn order comes around, you reduce actions then reduce your stunned modifier. If the modifier is still greater than 0, you are still stunned and still can't act. Once that modifier goes to 0, you are good to go.


For those stating that this makes stunned too good to be true, so is likely not the case: Do you know how many effects actually cause stunned? Did you know that the longest duration of stunned that isn't tracked in minutes is 4? From a critical failure no less?

It is still my belief that Stunned is intended to be a more severe version of slowed. Think of it more as limited duration unconsciousness.

To those who state that Stunned must reduce your actions on the turn you gain the condition, I point you to Stunned itself wherein it details the exact time and conditions under which it reduces your actions, specifically. So specifically that you could call it a specific rule that trumps the general rule.

You can run stunned however you want, but I warn you, the way the rule is written works and is apparently intended. This is why stunned is relatively rare, or if it is easily done like in the case of Stunning fist it has other mitigating factors, like the Incapacitate trait.

Advocating for stunned characters to be able to act is actually just replacing all instances of stunned with literally worse slowed.

You know, because slowed almost always has a specific duration instead of "counting down" like stunned does. You know, a differentiating factor that leads me to believe that the two shouldn't be grouped together.

But hey, what do I know. I'm an alleged Sophist.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If I'm Stunned, I can't act. So the concept of continuing to act during your turn while you are Stunned is illogical.
Stunned comes with a number of action. Not counting the actions you lose during your turn may be RAW, but it greatly changes the power of Stunned.
So, as a DM, I would just count the remaining actions as actions reducing the Stunned condition. I think it's fair and logical. I don't see a player complaining unless he tries to abuse the rules.


beowulf99 wrote:
I will agree that the page number does seem to be incorrect, but where did this come from then?

the page number is correct. Like I said in my previous post, the text matches exactly to the page that is cited - it comes from page 462.

What it isn't is an updated version of the side-bar which is on page 622 of the book or any kind of contradiction to that side-bar's text.


beowulf99 wrote:
BellyBeard wrote:
So the monk's turn should normally be move to melee into readying a Flurry of Blows with Stunning Fist for the start of the enemy's turn. If either attack hits and they fail the save they lose their entire turn, and one action the next turn.
Sure. If the monk wants to forego a third and fourth attack, that is a perfectly valid tactic. Granted with stunning blow being an incapacitate effect, against higher level foes it's probably better to go for attacks.

Third and fourth attacks are useless against bosses anyways. Even the minimum 5% chance of completely eliminating the boss's turn if they nat 1 the save is far more valuable than a 5-10% chance to do a little more damage, which is what the third attack would be against a higher level enemy.


beowulf99 wrote:
You're wrong...

If the universe is infinite then I suppose anything that doesn't violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics is possible.

All seriousness aside....

Quote:
So you are going to tell me, that you think it is fine that 2 conditions, paralysis and petrification, do in fact end your turn mid turn, but stunned which uses the same wording doesn't?

They don't use the same wording for how they are implemented. They don't even impose the same restrictions. They are completely different Conditions. Paralysis isn't even the same as Petrification. You're grasping at straws here.

Quote:
That sidebar clause does not say in any interpretation that stunned does not operate like paralysis and petrification. It states that paralysis and petrification do not reduce actions. That is an important distinction that you are ignoring.

The distinction that matters is that Stunned is a part of a category of Conditions which are based on the Gaining Losing of Actions. Petri and Para are not part of that group.

Paralysis actually doesn't even stop all actions. It just limits what you can do with the actions you you are regaining. That's why it's entirely necessary for you to continue to track the actions you're regaining so that when/if the Condition is removed, you're back to unlimited acts.

Petrification turns you into an object, so actions become irrelevant. There is no concept of having actions that you aren't able to use. Once you are petrified, you drop out of the Init order.

Quote:
It is still my belief that Stunned is intended to be a more severe version of slowed.

And it is. This is evident when the duration for Slowed or Stunned last 1 minute or more. When you are Slowed 1 for 1 minute, you lose one action each round. If you are Stunned for 1 minute. You lose all actions for 1 minute. That is an order of magnitude worse.

What you are probably focused on is that for one round durations, there is no functional difference between Slowed 1,2 and Stunned 1,2. But so what? These are two different Conditions they are imposed with different parameters. Power Word Stun can impose a Stunned for 1d6 actions. Flesh to Stone petrifies you if you get to Slowed 3. And as stated, once you get durations lasting more than 1 round, they work completely differently with Stunned being far more punishing.

The question that you should ask yourself is why does Paizo want an effect that only takes effect at the start of the victim's turn? Why not let Slowed impose itself immediately?


Wait wait wait. N N 959, you are going to sit there and tell me that there are different ways to implement the phrase "you can't act"?

No, you are missing the forest for the trees.

As I have stated who knows how many times in this thread, the "actions lost" during stunned are a counter. The actual penalty of being stunned is the fact that at any time you are stunned, you can't act. That is including the turn you gain the condition.

Paralysis and Petrified provide specific ways in which they differ from one another. So does unconscious. So does stunned.

In what way is the "You can't act," in Stunned specifically different from any of the other 3 conditions that impose this?

"You’ve become senseless. You can’t act while stunned."

"You’re sleeping, or you’ve been knocked out. You can’t
act."

"You have been turned to stone. You can’t act, nor can
you sense anything."

"Your body is frozen in place. You have the flat-footed
condition and can’t act except to Recall Knowledge and
use actions that require only the use of your mind (as
determined by the GM)."

The mental gymnastics it takes to think that these do not work similarly to each other are breath taking.

Similar to the what it takes to think that being covered in goo is similar to being stunned.


thenobledrake wrote:
beowulf99 wrote:
I will agree that the page number does seem to be incorrect, but where did this come from then?

the page number is correct. Like I said in my previous post, the text matches exactly to the page that is cited - it comes from page 462.

What it isn't is an updated version of the side-bar which is on page 622 of the book or any kind of contradiction to that side-bar's text.

Huh, well look who was too focused on sidebars to look at the actual content of a page of the book (that would be me for clarity). However, I will point out that both that section on 462 and the sidebar on 622 are essentially the same with a few minimal differences. Differences that could be an artifact left over from a rules change.

But neither writing indicates that "You can't act while stunned" means "go ahead and finish this turn bruh, you good," or that stunned reduces any actions that you already had when you gain the stunned condition.

Because it very specifically does not.

Edit* Reducing actions meaning that you actually "lose" that action. I feel like this is the disconnect that is causing most of the confusion in this thread. "Losing an action" is not the same as being unable to act. Stunned does both. If you somehow have an action while stunned, you can't use it. Then on your turn when you regain actions, you regain less actions, and reduce your stunned condition.
Unless that stunned condition is based on a certain amount of time, in which case stunned operates basically like being unconscious.


beowulf99 wrote:

No, you are missing the forest for the trees.

Ironically, I think this is your condition.

"You can't act" is telling us what happens whiled you are Stunned. Per the sidebar, that doesn't happen until the start of your turn.

If Stunned is meant to take effect immediately, then why even group it with Slowed in the Sidebar? Why not use SuperBidi's house rule?

Superbidi wrote:
So, as a DM, I would just count the remaining actions as actions reducing the Stunned condition.

Obviously Paizo thought of this and the decided not to do this. Do you know why?

Quote:
Wait wait wait. N N 959, you are going to sit there and tell me that there are different ways to implement the phrase "you can't act"?

You're shifting the goal posts every time someone scores a field goal. That post was answering your response about Paralyzing tracking Actions even though it say, "You can't act."

You're repeatedly trying to avoid the sidebar by inventing ways it's not violated or insisting it contradicts other Conditions and trying to associate Stunned with those Conditions. That's fine. It's neither convincing nor compelling for me, but ...so what.


N N 959 wrote:
beowulf99 wrote:

No, you are missing the forest for the trees.

Ironically, I think this is your condition.

"You can't act" is telling us what happens whiled you are Stunned. Per the sidebar, that doesn't happen until the start of your turn.

If Stunned is meant to take effect immediately, then why even group it with Slowed in the Sidebar? Why not use SuperBidi's house rule?

Superbidi wrote:
So, as a DM, I would just count the remaining actions as actions reducing the Stunned condition.

Obviously Paizo thought of this and the decided not to do this. Do you know why?

Quote:
Wait wait wait. N N 959, you are going to sit there and tell me that there are different ways to implement the phrase "you can't act"?

You're shifting the goal posts every time someone scores a field goal. That post was answering your response about Paralyzing tracking Actions even though it say, "You can't act."

You're repeatedly trying to avoid the sidebar by inventing ways it's not violated or insisting it contradicts other Conditions and trying to associate Stunned with those Conditions. That's fine. It's neither convincing nor compelling for me, but ...so what.

What goal post have I shifted? You haven't provided a shred of credible evidence that Stunned isn't immediate. The sidebar does not say explicitly that Stunned isn't immediate, it doesn't even say that it does not function like any other condition that imposes an inability to act.

You are flat out ignoring the second sentence of Stunned. Ignoring it like it doesn't exist.

edit: This actually makes your earlier sophistry comment more hilarious. Who is being a sophist here?

I have only argued with your interpretation of a sidebar that does not trump a specific rule. You are going out of your way to try to obfuscate my point by claiming that I am shifting goal posts or being a deceitful myself which is the definition of sophistry. I know, I googled it. :)


Eventually, you keep trying to hide behind the same rock:

Stopping you from acting in the middle of your turn is not the same as adjusting your actions to zero.

From where I sit, that rock isn't big enough for you to hide behind.


N N 959 wrote:

Eventually, you keep trying to hide behind the same rock:

Stopping you from acting in the middle of your turn is not the same as adjusting your actions to zero.

From where I sit, that rock isn't big enough for you to hide behind.

So if I can't hide, shine a light on the matter. How does stunned work then?

Point by point how do you resolve being stunned on your turn?

And to address the Op's question, if you become stunned, can you use reactions? Because Stunned doesn't stipulate specifically that you can't use reactions. But it does say that you can't act. Which should indicate that you couldn't use a reaction, but apparently does not. Because... why exactly?


If you get Stunned as part of a Reaction, you finish your turn normally. Then, at the "start of your turn" i.e. your next turn, you lose the actions based on the number. If it's a duration, then you're Stunned for the duration which starts on your turn..

While you are Stunned, you can't act.

Beo wrote:
And to address the Op's question, if you become stunned, can you use reactions?*** Because... why exactly?
Sidebar wrote:
When you can’t act, you’re unable to take any actions at all.

It's my observation that the crux of he issue is when does getting Stunned start to impose its effects? This is what Laran identified.

The things that give me pause, I've already mentioned:

1. Slowed and Quickened definitions include a clause that is missing for Stunned. This leaves the door open for an interpretation that allows a GM to impose Stunned mid-cycle (but that still violates the sidebar and creates the problem with Stunned 1 having a variable impact)

2. It's natural to think that you've been Stunned and it takes effect immediately. However, Paizo does seem to go out of its way to create this "Gaining and Losing Abilities" category of which Stunned is included. But because of #1, there's a feeling of ambiguity.

3. As a whole, the writing takes a lot of connecting the dots. But admittedly it does this with Stealth and pre-init triggers and actions. PF2 seems to require more dot connecting to get the whole picture, despite it's efforts to make the rules generally simple.

Looks, it's possible Paizo got its wires crossed on this one. But from my reading there are a lot of hurdles you need to overcome to convince me I'm supposed to ignore the sidebar and stop someone from taking any more actions mid-turn when it's clear Slowed and Quickened are not suppose to have any effect mid-turn, and Stunned is specifically grouped with them in the section that tells us not to do it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
beowulf99 wrote:
As I have stated who knows how many times in this thread, the "actions lost" during stunned are a counter. The actual penalty of being stunned is the fact that at any time you are stunned, you can't act. That is including the turn you gain the condition.

The second sentence of stunned says "Stunned usually includes a value, which indicates how many total actions you lose, possibly over multiple turns, from being stunned." Based on that general idea I don't believe extra actions should be removed on your turn without reducing the stunned value. If you are stunned 1 and lose 2 actions on your turn plus one next turn, that's 3 actions lost, so that would contradict this sentence. Losing actions and being unable to use actions are one and the same, at least as I see it.

In fact I don't think there's any consistent way of reading this full entry for a Stun that happens on your turn. It seems very likely to be an errata target. Because of that, and in absence of developer comment about the intention, I think any ruling will have to effectively be a house rule at this point. Just do what makes sense for your group.

(Im sure others will disagree that it's clear as day if you read it one particular way and make some assumptions, but this is my opinion on the topic)


N N 959 wrote:

If you get Stunned as part of a Reaction, you finish your turn normally. Then, at the "start of your turn" i.e. your next turn, you lose the actions based on the number. If it's a duration, then you're Stunned for the duration which starts on your turn..

While you are Stunned, you can't act.

Beo wrote:
And to address the Op's question, if you become stunned, can you use reactions?*** Because... why exactly?
Sidebar wrote:
When you can’t act, you’re unable to take any actions at all.

The things that give me pause, I've already mentioned:

1. Slowed and Quickened definitions include a clause that is missing for Stunned. This leaves the door open for an interpretation that allows a GM to impose Stunned mid-cycle (but that still violates the sidebar and creates the problem with Stunned 1 having a variable impact)

2. It's natural to think that you've been Stunned and it takes effect immediately. Paizo does seem to go out of its way to create this "Gaining and Losing Abilities" of which Stunned is included, but because of #1, there's a feeling of ambiguity.

3. As a whole, the writing takes a lot of connecting the dots. But admittedly it does this with Stealth and pre-init triggers and actions. PF2 seems to require more dot connecting to get the whole picture, despite it's efforts to make the rules generally simple.

Looks, it's possible Paizo got its wires crossed on this one. But from my reading there are a lot of hurdles you need to overcome to convince me I'm supposed to ignore the sidebar and stop someone from taking any more actions mid-turn when it's clear Slowed and Quickened are not suppose to have any effect mid-turn, and Stunned is specifically grouped with them in the section that tells us not to do it.

Sure, then you can refer to page 462, "gaining and losing actions", which is essentially a rewritten form of the sidebar (thanks thenobledrake, I probably would have never found it honestly if you hadn't prompted me to do a quick Nethys search at work) which does not group those 3 conditions together.

A list on Nethys that shows the "groups" of conditions"

It is my belief that the sidebar on page 622 is essentially old. Going back to the Playtest, originally Stunned simply stated that you can't act. There was no reducing actions at all. I believe that they added this mechanic to Stunned to provide an inbuilt timer and reduce the severity of the condition, or just to make the condition more interesting than "you can't act" alone.

And as far as I can find, there was no "Gaining and Losing actions" section in the playtest which indicates that it was added afterwards, or just not included for whatever reason.

This is neither here nor there though.

To parrot an earlier poster, there are 3 ways I've seen to resolve Stunned.

1. You can't act immediately when being stunned, then on your turn you begin losing actions.

2. You can finish your turn and can apparently still use reactions until your next turn when you suddenly are actually stunned.

3. You can't act immediately when being stunned and count any actions you lose during that turn against the number lost to Stunned.

To me 1 and 3 are the most likely, but I still lean heavily towards 1. Stunned itself already tells you when you specifically "lose actions" to it. When you regain actions. Nothing in the sidebar argues with that.

So the key issue is whether the phrase, "you can't act," actually means you can't act or not.

That is for each GM to decide. I have made my opinion abundantly clear.


BellyBeard wrote:
If you are stunned 1 and lose 2 actions on your turn plus one next turn, that's 3 actions lost, so that would contradict this sentence. Losing actions and being unable to use actions are one and the same, at least as I see it.

This is one of the hurdles that crops up with mid-turn application. And while it's certainly possible to create a Condition that works this way, I would require Paizo have clearly indicated this is what should happen, instead of the opposite of that which is what the sidebar does.


N N 959 wrote:
BellyBeard wrote:
If you are stunned 1 and lose 2 actions on your turn plus one next turn, that's 3 actions lost, so that would contradict this sentence. Losing actions and being unable to use actions are one and the same, at least as I see it.

This is one of the hurdles that crops up with mid-turn application. And while it's certainly possible to create a Condition that works this way, I would require Paizo have clearly indicated this is what should happen, instead of the opposite of that which is what the sidebar does.

That all depends on your definition of "lost action". I agree that for all intents and purposes an action you can't use is essentially lost. But it is definitely possible, and to me likely, that there is a distinction made in the conditions rules between lost actions and unusable actions. Stunned is just special in that it does both.

I would agree that the wording in the sidebar needs a bit of clarification. But for me, there is more than enough evidence to support my position. Nothing about the sidebar's wording changes that in my mind.

You can't act still means you can't act.

"Each time you regain actions (such as at the start of your turn), reduce the number you regain by your stunned value," cannot happen during your turn. So it is obvious to me that stunned inflicts both penalties.

And that is ok. Stunned isn't exactly around every corner in the game. I'm not sure my group has ever been in a position where it was even on the table either in the groups hands or a monster.

The generally limited amount of stun that effects give also supports this line of thinking.

But now I'm just rambling over things I've already said, and still believe.


beowulf99 wrote:


Sure, then you can refer to page 462,..

That is the first section I read and quoted in my first response, so I've ready it multiple times. It doesn't help your argument.

Quote:
It is my belief that the sidebar on page 622 is essentially old.

So here again, you're grasping at straws. This type of statement really exposes a lack of objectivity. You've got nothing on which to make this assertion other than it provides you a way to dismiss rules that contradict your position. My interpretation doesn't require that I invalidate any section of the rules by virtue of age.

Quote:
So the key issue is whether the phrase, "you can't act," actually means you can't act or not.

That isn't the "key" issue. The issue is "when" are you Stunned. When does the condition impose itself? There is no disagreement about what it means when it says, "You can't act." The disagreement is about when that applies.

Quote:
2. You can finish your turn and can apparently still use reactions until your next turn when you suddenly are actually stunned.

Yes. And this is exactly what happens with Slowed and Quickened. They have no effect on you until the start of your next turn when "suddenly" they are applied. You haven't provided any reason why it can't work the way it's written, especially in the face of the other related Conditions working in that way.

It's a game. The rules can work anyway the writers want them to. Obviously they want Conditions that don't apply mid-turn. I read Stunned as one of them.


N N 959 wrote:
beowulf99 wrote:


Sure, then you can refer to page 462,..

That is the first section I read and quoted in my first response, so I've ready it multiple times. It doesn't help your argument.

Quote:
It is my belief that the sidebar on page 622 is essentially old.

So here again, you're grasping at straws. This type fo statement really exposes a lack of objectivity. You've got nothing on which to make this assertion other than it provides you a way to dismiss rules that contradict your position. My interpretation doesn't require that I invalidate any section of the rules by virtue of age.

Quote:
So the key issue is whether the phrase, "you can't act," actually means you can't act or not.

That isn't the "key" issue. The issue is "when" are you Stunned. When does the condition impose itself. There is no disagreement about what it means when it say, "You can't act." The disagreement is about when that applies.

Quote:
2. You can finish your turn and can apparently still use reactions until your next turn when you suddenly are actually stunned.

Yes. And this is exactly what happens with Slowed and Quickened. They have no effect on you until the start of your next turn when "suddenly" they are applied. You haven't provided any reason why it can't work the way it's written, especially in the face of the other related Conditions working in that way.

It's a game. The rules can work anyway the writers want them to. Obviously they want Conditions that don't apply mid-turn. I read Stunned as one of them.

Flippity floppity, they also want conditions that apply mid-turn. Stunned is just special in that it afflicts both. And here we go around the merry go round.

So if you become stunned, why specifically would you not immediately suffer it's effects? Despite what you claim over and over again the sidebar does not specifically say that Stunned waits until your turn to apply "you can't act". What it does say is that the second part of stunned, losing regained actions, applies when you regain actions.

Could it be that like several other conditions Stunned could have multiple individual effects? And that those effects could have different timing? Unconscious inflicts an inability to act, flat footed and additional penalties to various checks on top of not being able to use your senses. That's a lot of effects. Why can't Stunned have 2 different effects?

Why can't Stunned immediately apply "you can't act" and then "reduce regained actions" on your turn?

You keep talking about Slowed. Slowed specifically states that it doesn't take effect until your turn in the condition and in the sidebar. Stunned only makes that distinction for the actual "loss" of actions it applies. Stunned does not state that you apply "you can't act," once the second part of stunned takes effect. You are adding that.

And that loss can trigger you losing Stunned. Which is why I believe stunned applies from the moment you gain the condition to the moment that you end it by "losing" enough actions to it, in the way that the condition specifically states you lose actions to it.

It can do both.


N N 959 wrote:

Eventually, you keep trying to hide behind the same rock:

Stopping you from acting in the middle of your turn is not the same as adjusting your actions to zero.

From where I sit, that rock isn't big enough for you to hide behind.


At first, Beowulf, I thought your interpretation was a bit ridiculous, but now I see that logically, it's pretty bulletproof (though I do think that everyone could just lay off the condescension. This is a complicated game and keeping all the relevant details in your working memory is no small... Feat).

The disconnect I think for me is that, while it is implied, it doesn't state anywhere that reducing actions and preventing you from acting are mutually exclusive, and according to the rules as far as I can tell, stunned does in fact do both.

This is why it is not contradictory for it to say "you do not lose the actions on that turn" and "you cannot act" at the same time, and why when it says "unlike stunned...". It means unlike stunned in the sense that it doesn't change the number of actions you regain, but it IS like stunned in that... You can't use them. Yes, this is a highly particular distinction, but I'm pretty sure it all checks out.

Now, how could such a distinction possibly be meaningful?

Suppose I get stunned 1 as a result of my first action. I can no longer act, but I have not lost my actions. My turn ends, and on my ally's turn, they heal me of stunned. I can now use my reaction. Had I lost it, I would not be able to use it in this scenario.

I think this language needs to be cleared up for sure.


N N 959 wrote:
Superbidi wrote:
So, as a DM, I would just count the remaining actions as actions reducing the Stunned condition.
Obviously Paizo thought of this and the decided not to do this. Do you know why?

Ok, so, your premise is that Paizo thought of this.

Beowulf's interpretation means that you can stun for a whole round. RAI, such an effect would be protected. Either by the Incapacitation trait or by the need for a Critical Failure.
So, it's very easy to disprove Beowulf's interpretation: If we can find a way to stun for one action that is not protected by the Incapacitation trait (or the need for a critical failure), then he's wrong.
Thing is, I only know of Stunning Fist doing that, and it's protected by the Incapacitation trait (and everyone always wonder why). So, maybe you're right, Paizo thought of this, and Beowulf's right :)


For the record, I never post with the intention of belittling another person, or arguing with them for the sake of argument. I truly do believe that my interpretation is the most correct that has been posited.

I am fully willing to admit I am wrong, so long as a good enough argument has been made to that effect.

To illustrate this, earlier I had stated that I believed Haste being cast on you would cause you to "gain" an action mid turn, thus triggering Stunned. After a re-read of the rules, specifically the Quickened condition, I have realized that Quickened does not trigger until the beginning of the quickened characters turn and thus was incorrect in that statement. This was not a property of quickened that I was aware of honestly, and is likely something that I have already goofed on at the table.

Overall this discussion has improved my game mastery considerably, especially where conditions are concerned.


SuperBidi wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
Superbidi wrote:
So, as a DM, I would just count the remaining actions as actions reducing the Stunned condition.
Obviously Paizo thought of this and the decided not to do this. Do you know why?
Ok, so, your premise is that Paizo thought of this.

If by "this" you are referring to the mechanic if having Slowed/Stunned take effect immediately and having any remaining actions be used by it, then yes. It's unequivocally true because Paizo specifically tells us to wait to the start of the victim's turn because otherwise you'd do exactly what you're house ruling.

Quote:
Beowulf's interpretation means that you can stun for a whole round. RAI, such an effect would be protected. Either by the Incapacitation trait or by the need for a Critical Failure.

I don't know where you're coming up with that rationale, so you'll have to explain why that argument holds any validity.

Quote:
So, it's very easy to disprove Beowulf's interpretation: If we can find a way to stun for one action that is not protected by the Incapacitation trait (or the need for a critical failure), then he's wrong.

I don't actually agree that this proves what you think it proves, so once again, I'll ask you to walk me through it, but since you asked...

Under feats...Roll with it.

Under equipment...Dazing Coil

Under spells...Power Word Stun

Under monsters...Subsonic Hum

This list is not exhaustive and I as I read them, they all can provide a Stunned 1 without reference to the Incapacitate trait/effect or the need for a critical failure.

As stated, I don't follow your logic here, so I am not seeing how this resolves anything, but would welcome an explanation.


SuperBidi wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
Superbidi wrote:
So, as a DM, I would just count the remaining actions as actions reducing the Stunned condition.
Obviously Paizo thought of this and the decided not to do this. Do you know why?

As an FYI, the "Do you know why?" was actually intended for Beowulf, but I can see how it looks like I was asking you. Apologies for the confusion. Admittedly, though, I would welcome an answer from anyone who knew.


N N 959 wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
Superbidi wrote:
So, as a DM, I would just count the remaining actions as actions reducing the Stunned condition.
Obviously Paizo thought of this and the decided not to do this. Do you know why?
Ok, so, your premise is that Paizo thought of this.

If by "this" you are referring to the mechanic if having Slowed/Stunned take effect immediately and having any remaining actions be used by it, then yes. It's unequivocally true because Paizo specifically tells us to wait to the start of the victim's turn because otherwise you'd do exactly what you're house ruling.

Quote:
Beowulf's interpretation means that you can stun for a whole round. RAI, such an effect would be protected. Either by the Incapacitation trait or by the need for a Critical Failure.

I don't know where you're coming up with that rationale, so you'll have to explain why that argument holds any validity.

Quote:
So, it's very easy to disprove Beowulf's interpretation: If we can find a way to stun for one action that is not protected by the Incapacitation trait (or the need for a critical failure), then he's wrong.

I don't actually agree that this proves what you think it proves, so once again, I'll ask you to walk me through it, but since you asked...

Under feats...Roll with it.

Under equipment...Dazing Coil

Under spells...Power Word Stun

Under monsters...Subsonic Hum

This list is not exhaustive and I as I read them, they all can provide a Stunned 1 without reference to the Incapacitate trait/effect or the need for a critical failure.

As stated, I don't follow your logic here, so I am not seeing how this resolves anything, but would welcome an explanation.

I didn't understand that you were speaking to Beowulf.

Applying Beowulf's ruling would mean that Power Word Stun would completely imbalance the game. So, it's a proof that Beowulf's ruling can't be applied (RAW or not RAW, I don't care if it means trivializing most combats). So, I'll keep my ruling. Fair and logical, seems better than RAW.


SuperBidi wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
Superbidi wrote:
So, as a DM, I would just count the remaining actions as actions reducing the Stunned condition.
Obviously Paizo thought of this and the decided not to do this. Do you know why?
Ok, so, your premise is that Paizo thought of this.

If by "this" you are referring to the mechanic if having Slowed/Stunned take effect immediately and having any remaining actions be used by it, then yes. It's unequivocally true because Paizo specifically tells us to wait to the start of the victim's turn because otherwise you'd do exactly what you're house ruling.

Quote:
Beowulf's interpretation means that you can stun for a whole round. RAI, such an effect would be protected. Either by the Incapacitation trait or by the need for a Critical Failure.

I don't know where you're coming up with that rationale, so you'll have to explain why that argument holds any validity.

Quote:
So, it's very easy to disprove Beowulf's interpretation: If we can find a way to stun for one action that is not protected by the Incapacitation trait (or the need for a critical failure), then he's wrong.

I don't actually agree that this proves what you think it proves, so once again, I'll ask you to walk me through it, but since you asked...

Under feats...Roll with it.

Under equipment...Dazing Coil

Under spells...Power Word Stun

Under monsters...Subsonic Hum

This list is not exhaustive and I as I read them, they all can provide a Stunned 1 without reference to the Incapacitate trait/effect or the need for a critical failure.

As stated, I don't follow your logic here, so I am not seeing how this resolves anything, but would welcome an explanation.

I didn't understand that you were speaking to...

Superbidi... Power Word Stun is an 8th level spell. Are you telling me that you believe that an 8th level spell slot to Paizo is only worth making a creature of your own level Stunned 1? Using N N 959's interpretation that means they can only ever lose 1 action from it, with no change to the use of reactions.

Dazing Coil is a Talisman designed for a rogue, can only stun 1 and can only apply to creatures that are flat footed for you. Oh, and as a 14th level item DC 31 isn't exactly an "Unbeatable" DC.

Roll with it applies stunned to you as a trade for taking minimum damage on any attack you choose to activate the feat for.

Carnivorous Crystal is a creature. There are plenty of examples of creatures having abilities designed to put pressure on PC's. Grabbed for example allows them to do something that PC's can't do without feats, Grab without a roll.

Doesn't feel very imbalanced to me. In fact Power Word Stun kind of sucks using N N 959's interpretation, especially for an 8th level spell slot.


beowulf99 wrote:
Superbidi... Power Word Stun is an 8th level spell. Are you telling me that you believe that an 8th level spell slot to Paizo is only worth making a creature of your own level Stunned 1?

You realize that with your interpretation you can stunlock any creature. As soon as you hit level 15, you can perfect a Grim Reaper (but not Treerazer, he's immune to mental, but I expect soon to see other level 25+ monsters who're not mental immune so you can have fun killing creature 10 levels above yours).

So, yeah, clearly, there's an issue somewhere. And I don't think it's an issue with Power Word Stun.


SuperBidi wrote:
beowulf99 wrote:
Superbidi... Power Word Stun is an 8th level spell. Are you telling me that you believe that an 8th level spell slot to Paizo is only worth making a creature of your own level Stunned 1?

You realize that with your interpretation you can stunlock any creature. As soon as you hit level 15, you can perfect a Grim Reaper (but not Treerazer, he's immune to mental, but I expect soon to see other level 25+ monsters who're not mental immune so you can have fun killing creature 10 levels above yours).

So, yeah, clearly, there's an issue somewhere. And I don't think it's an issue with Power Word Stun.

Stunlock any creature with what ability? If you are going to make that claim, spell it out. Don't make me guess. That's rude.

*Edit: Do you mean with Power Word Stun? How would they be locked? How long could you keep them locked? Could you kill them during that lock?

Also no stun locking: You stun the target with an arcane word of power. Once
targeted, the target is then temporarily immune for 10
minutes. The effect of the spell depends on the target’s level.


Also: Stunned does nothing to reduce a creatures AC. So good luck hitting a creature 10 levels above you reliably, even if it can't act.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
beowulf99 wrote:


https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=774

You should double check that link. It does group conditions but stun is not grouped in any of them. Nor is it grouped in the CRB. So it doesn't really add any clarity to how stunned works.

There is actually not a RAW interpretation that can hit the key points of stun, and there is a discrepancy between the full text and the sidebar information regarding action loss.

per pg 622 on the conditions
Point#1) : You've become senseless, you can't act while stunned. Stunned usually indicates a value, which indicates how many total actions you lose.

Point#2)also page 622 stunned has no text indicating it doesn't apply until the start of you turn. Both quickened and slowed do. Possible oversight but more likely intended.

Point#3) You only lose actions at the beginning on your turn, but there is a discrepancy between the side bar on 622 and the full text on 462. The full text of 462 does not mention stun only affecting at the beginning of the turn only calling out slowed and quickened, but it does mention losing actions any other way allowing you to pick which actions are lost. Given this discrepancy, and point #2 above, I would go with the full text over the sidebar.

Point #4) The mechanics described in stunned pg 622 say "whenever you regain actions at the start of your turn reduce the number of actions by your stunned value.

As I read this, stunned affects you immediately. You do not get to finish your turn (Point #2). You cannot react while stunned (#1). You then pick which actions are lost (point#3), counting these against the total lost actions (point #1).

Point number 4 doesn't strike me as the only way to reduce stun, it strikes me as an impact when you regain actions. Only that if you are regaining actions you reduce them and decrease the stun.

Cannot let them finish the turn without violating #2. They cannot take reactions with violating #1. Not reducing the stunned value for these lost actions violates #1 by increasing the number of lost actions.

I don't buy the argument that not being able to take actions is somehow different from losing them. It's not spelled out anywhere that they are different, and stunned specifically says you lose a set number of actions (unless a duration rounds, minutes, etc is given)

It's also not 100% clear that piazo ruled against reducing actions counting against stunned, so much as overlooked it and didn't find a good way to explain it beyond, you lose x number of actions possibly across multiple turns.

Basically, I am going to be running it as SuperBidi recommends. It feels most in line with RAW and RAI.


Jared Walter 356 wrote:

...It's also not 100% clear that piazo ruled against reducing actions counting against stunned, so much as overlooked it and didn't find a good way to explain it beyond, you lose x number of actions possibly across multiple turns.

Basically, I am going to be running it as SuperBidi recommends. It feels most in line with RAW and RAI.

And that is your right at your table. However I do think that applying it the way that Superbidi recommends reduces the overall effectiveness of Stunned as a Condition in that one specific instance, when it is received during your turn. Largely it doesn't effect it at all in any other circumstance.

I don't believe that is the intention behind Stunned at all, nor do I agree that the rules are unclear about whether "lost actions" refer to actions that you simply can't use, like in the case of the "cannot act" conditions and actions that are "reduced" as in slowed and the second part of Stunned.

The fact that the Sidebar on 622 even mentions being able to "act immediately" if cured of Paralysis tells me that there is an intended difference between the two. As I stated previously Stunned is special in that it can cause both situations to occur where as no other condition can. This is what has caused the confusion on how to apply stunned in my honest opinion.

Edit* What I am saying is that the rules do not say that you "lose" actions that you cannot use due to being paralyzed or unconscious, and that is the obvious difference between actions that you are unable to use and those that are "reduced" due to slowed or part two of stunned. This is what leads me to believe that the action reduction of Stunned is in fact what it appears to be: A timing mechanic mixed with a secondary penalty effect.

It's really quite elegant if it was worded a bit more clearly.

Grand Lodge

beowulf99 wrote:
Jared Walter 356 wrote:

...It's also not 100% clear that piazo ruled against reducing actions counting against stunned, so much as overlooked it and didn't find a good way to explain it beyond, you lose x number of actions possibly across multiple turns.

Basically, I am going to be running it as SuperBidi recommends. It feels most in line with RAW and RAI.

The fact that the Sidebar on 622 even mentions being able to "act immediately" if cured of Paralysis tells me that there is an intended difference between the two. As I stated previously Stunned is special in that it can cause both situations to occur where as no other condition can. This is what has caused the confusion on how to apply stunned in my honest opinion.It's really quite elegant if it was worded a bit more clearly.

It's more interesting to me that the text you are quoting is omitted from pg 462 with the full rules on actions. The sidebar also states that you don't lose actions from stun until the start of the round, but this conflicts with the stun description. Because the text of 462 and 622 conflict with the sidebar on 622, one of them must be in error. This is why I don't think it's certain that this was the intent.

There aren't any mechanics that would allow you save any actions you are unable to take across turns except delay which only kicks in at the beginning of the turn so the difference between lost actions and unable to use actions is essentially gone. I agree with your assessment that the sidebar is obsolete, as there are clearly two points where it conflicts with other parts of the text. With that assessment it makes the sidebar a weaker choice for rules citation than the full text IMO.

I think you are correct in that stunned applies immediately. I do think your interpretation seems overly harsh for a weak condition. It basically raises stunned to a duration 1 petrify, and diminishes the difference between stunned 1 and stunned 3. Running it your way also seems to violate the intent of the text "Lose a total number of actions"

I will admit that running it my way has some RAW rules issues as well. Primarily around the counter at the beginning of the turn.

The only thing I am of which I am 100% certain is the text conflicts with itself, so a strict RAW interpretation is just impossible. There was no additional clarification brought by grouping of these conditions as well. If it had been grouped with paralyzed it would be more evidence that it is intended to work your way. If it had been grouped with slowed, it would indicate it was most likely intended to work my way.

The rules are not robust here, and I suspect that some of the confusion is left over from the playtest that didn't get completely edited from the sidebar on pg 622. It may have worked different in the playtest, and I suspect this is more a case of overlooked editing than an intentional mechanical advantage of applying stunned as a reaction during an opponents turn opposed to applying it during your turn.

Because your interpretation changes the value of a stun significantly on a reaction over an action, I go back to pg 444 on ambiguous rules being too good to be true or causing problematic implications. Asking the question "Why should stun be so much more valuable as a reaction that it would as my own action?". As a reaction, I can "stun 1" to take away 2 or 3 or 4 actions from an opponent if I get them on their turn. This implication alone is enough to tell me that your interpretation while based (mostly) in RAW is almost certainly not RAI.


I can agree that the wording of the text is contradictory at times which does make an RAW ruling very difficult.

But I disagree with the assertion that stunned is a weak condition. After all it is one of 4 conditions that inflict an inability to act at all and it is the sole effect of an 8th level spell, a spell that you become immune temporarily after being effected by (Power Word Stun).

This tells me that the intention of stunned is to be powerful. Stunning fist was given Incapacitation because it can, "take a character out of the fight". Looking at the array of abilities and items that can inflict Stunned, most of them are mid to late game abilities. If they are not they have severe restrictions on how stunned is applied.

This tells me that the intention of Stunned is to be powerful. Essentially an encounter ending condition if applied at the right time.

I suppose my argument about Stunned with regards to RAI is that even the weakest of the "can't act" conditions is worse than most others and should be.

To answer the question about the playtest, Stunned just inflicted "you can't act" full stop. That was when all conditions had a more defined duration.

Grand Lodge

beowulf99 wrote:

I can agree that the wording of the text is contradictory at times which does make an RAW ruling very difficult.

But I disagree with the assertion that stunned is a weak condition. After all it is one of 4 conditions that inflict an inability to act at all and it is the sole effect of an 8th level spell, a spell that you become immune temporarily after being effected by (Power Word Stun).

stunned is introduced at 1st level, but the other cannot incapacitating abilities are much higher level indicating its power level is intended to be much lower than say paralysis. Stunned still has a well defined duration, typically a few lost actions, but the more powerful versions can last for rounds. If its duration is measured in actions, each lost action should be counting against it regardless of when it applied.

I think the reason power-word stun is 8th level has less to do with stun, then the fact it cannot be avoided, requires no attack roll, and that is a single action spell. It also only limited to stun 1 on 16 or higher level creature. It can stun up to 6 rounds for a lv 13 or lower creature. Stuns duration measured in rounds would work as you describe.

Stunned 1 from monk attack (lv 2 feat) is reasonably easy to trigger (hit twice with flurry), but they get a save. Daze is a cantrip that inflicts stunned 1 on a crit fail. Not super reliabe to be sure but not indicative that stunned 1 should be so powerful.


Note: A Monk doesn't need to hit twice with a Flurry, just once.
They do need to aim both Strikes at the same enemy and to do damage.
So most every round there'll be a chance to stun.
It's really powerful for a 2nd level feat, and no other class can unlock it until 12th level.

I think a crucial question is, when is the target stunned?
If it's immediately, then they can't act immediately as per the Stunned condition.
Otherwise, one is saying the target isn't actually stunned until the beginning of their turn (when it effects their action count).
This kinda makes the "can't act" superfluous since obviously you can't act during actions you don't receive. And then we'd have to apply the same thinking to when an attacker stuns them normally, meaning the target would get Reactions until their turn since they're not "really" stunned until then...which seems silly.
Might it be too powerful to use Readied actions to disrupt a target's turn w/ a Stun effect? Yep. It might be. But that's how it is now. I think the best solution is errata so actions lost to stun get counted immediately. (And include an answer to what happens to activities that are interrupted, especially those that take multiple actions.)


Castilliano wrote:
This kinda makes the "can't act" superfluous since obviously you can't act during actions you don't receive.

It's put in there be because Stunned can include a duration. This lets everyone know that when you're stunned for X minutes of X rounds, "you can't act" during that entire time, so it's not redundant.

Quote:
since they're not "really" stunned until then...which seems silly.

This is exactly how Slowed and Quickened work. Regardless of when they are applied, they don't take effect until the start of your turn. I read the sidebar as telling us that's exactly how Stunned works.

Quote:
I think the best solution is errata so actions lost to stun get counted immediately.

I've asked this questions several times and no one has an answer, why does Paizo specifically tell us not to do this? Obviously Paizo could have written Stunned and Slowed to consume and count any remaining actions in a round, but sidebar makes it clear that they not only contemplated it, but don't want that to be the way it works.

Why?

Grand Lodge

Castilliano wrote:

Note: A Monk doesn't need to hit twice with a Flurry, just once.

They do need to aim both Strikes at the same enemy and to do damage.
So most every round there'll be a chance to stun.

Thanks for the Clarification Castilliano. I was skim reading to find an example of a low level stun effect.

I will only summarize my position. See above for references and reasons.

#1) Stunned applies immediately.
#2) Stunned denies reactions
#3) Being stunned on your turn causes you to lose actions on your turn and this should be counted against the stunned duration.

In short, I agree with your errata proposal and already feel that it is in line with RAI, and RAW is a internally contradictory.

on a side note, the rules for disrupted activities are on pg 462 (disrupted activities).


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Well from the Archives of Nethys:

"Stunned overrides slowed. If the duration of your stunned condition ends while you are slowed, you count the actions lost to the stunned condition toward those lost to being slowed. So, if you were stunned 1 and slowed 2 at the beginning of your turn, you would lose 1 action from stunned, and then lose only 1 additional action by being slowed, so you would still have 1 action remaining to use that turn."

As stated above, If your Stunned 1 and Slowed 2 you would lose 1 action from stunned and then lose only 1 additional action by being slowed.

Where does the "can't act" come into effect then?

Per the example above the "can't act" only last as long as the condition which a Stunned 1 only lasts for 1 total action.

Stunned 2 lasts for a total of 2 total actions,
Stunned 3 lasts for a total of 3 total actions,
Stunned 4 would last 4 total actions which would span over 2 of your turns. 1st turn, all 3 actions as well as reactions are stunned and can't act. 2nd turn, you lose 1 action and now have 2 actions left.

Anyone in disagreement with this?

Grand Lodge

N N 959 wrote:


This is exactly how Slowed and Quickened work. Regardless of when they are applied, they don't take effect until the start of your turn. I read the sidebar as telling us that's exactly how Stunned works.

This text is missing from the full description of the stunned condition , but is present is Slowed and Quickened. Definite oversight on either the stunned entry or the side-bar.


N N 959 wrote:
Castilliano wrote:
This kinda makes the "can't act" superfluous since obviously you can't act during actions you don't receive.

It's put in there be because Stunned can include a duration. This lets everyone know that when you're stunned for X minutes of X rounds, "you can't act" during that entire time, so it's not redundant.

Quote:
since they're not "really" stunned until then...which seems silly.

This is exactly how Slowed and Quickened work. Regardless of when they are applied, they don't take effect until the start of your turn. I read the sidebar as telling us that's exactly how Stunned works.

Quote:
I think the best solution is errata so actions lost to stun get counted immediately.

I've asked this questions several times and no one has an answer, why does Paizo specifically tell us not to do this? Obviously Paizo could have written Stunned and Slowed to consume and count any remaining actions in a round, but sidebar makes it clear that they not only contemplated it, but don't want that to be the way it works.

Why?

1. Stunned includes the "you can't act while stunned" wording so that it applies immediately. Later in the condition there are rules for how to apply Stunned on a timed duration, which if what you are saying was true would in fact make the "you can't act" wording redundant.

2. You are still grouping Stunned with Quickened and Slowed in it's entirety. But there is not one single shred of evidence to support that Stunned in it's entirety works in a similar fashion to slowed. The reduction of regained actions is the only part of Stunned that would work similarly to Slowed.

3. I am fine with doing so as a house rule. But it is a house rule that has issues. I also would like clarification on Stunned, if for no other reason than to make resolving Stunned more simple. And you keep asking "Why?". What are you asking here? What was Paizo thinking when they wrote the rule?


Krugus wrote:

Well from the Archives of Nethys:

"Stunned overrides slowed. If the duration of your stunned condition ends while you are slowed, you count the actions lost to the stunned condition toward those lost to being slowed. So, if you were stunned 1 and slowed 2 at the beginning of your turn, you would lose 1 action from stunned, and then lose only 1 additional action by being slowed, so you would still have 1 action remaining to use that turn."

As stated above, If your Stunned 1 and Slowed 2 you would lose 1 action from stunned and then lose only 1 additional action by being slowed.

Where does the "can't act" come into effect then?

Per the example above the "can't act" only last as long as the condition which a Stunned 1 only lasts for 1 total action.

Stunned 2 lasts for a total of 2 total actions,
Stunned 3 lasts for a total of 3 total actions,
Stunned 4 would last 4 total actions which would span over 2 of your turns. 1st turn, all 3 actions as well as reactions are stunned and can't act. 2nd turn, you lose 1 action and now have 2 actions left.

Anyone in disagreement with this?

The way I interpret this is that Stunned has 2 key effects. The first being "you can't act while stunned," meaning that if you gain the condition during your turn, like say from Stunning Snare, you immediately can't act.

The second effect is the loss of "regained" actions. This secondary effect functions as Slowed does, and unless the Stunned condition you have suffered has a timed duration, also determines how many total actions that Stunned "reduces".

If that interpretation is accurate then Stunned can make you lose up to it's condition value + however many actions you had when you gained the condition. This is what is causing the debate in all honesty.

I am fine with Stunned being resolved as I have described, especially when applied as a reaction. If you think about it, doing so costs more than applying it during your own turn more often than not. If a monk want's to Stunning Fist as a reaction he has to spend 2 actions to prepare the Flurry then a reaction to apply it. Same with a level 15 Wizard and Power Word Stun. It is more powerful when applied this way, but also costs more of your action resources to do so.

Seems fair to me.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

It also lists in the Appendix of the CRB:

"stunned (condition) You can’t act for a number of actions or an amount of time. 622"

So they defined it as You can't act for a number of actions or! an amount of time.

So Stunned 1 is you can't act for 1 Action thus it is not: Get stunned in the middle of your turn and now you lose the rest of your actions till your next turn.

According to the CRB...


Krugus wrote:

It also lists in the Appendix of the CRB:

"stunned (condition) You can’t act for a number of actions or an amount of time. 622"

So they defined it as You can't act for a number of actions or! an amount of time.

So Stunned 1 is you can't act for 1 Action thus it is not: Get stunned in the middle of your turn and now you lose the rest of your actions till your next turn.

According to the CRB...

You are paraphrasing hard.

CRB Pg. 622 "Stunned" wrote:

You’ve become senseless. You can’t act while stunned.

Stunned usually includes a value, which indicates how
many total actions you lose, possibly over multiple turns,
from being stunned. Each time you regain actions (such
as at the start of your turn), reduce the number you regain
by your stunned value, then reduce your stunned value
by the number of actions you lost. For example, if you
were stunned 4, you would lose all 3 of your actions on
your turn, reducing you to stunned 1; on your next turn,
you would lose 1 more action, and then be able to use
your remaining 2 actions normally. Stunned might also
have a duration instead of a value, such as “stunned for
1 minute.” In this case, you lose all your actions for the
listed duration.
Stunned overrides slowed. If the duration of your
stunned condition ends while you are slowed, you count
the actions lost to the stunned condition toward those lost
to being slowed. So, if you were stunned 1 and slowed 2
at the beginning of your turn, you would lose 1 action
from stunned, and then lose only 1 additional action by
being slowed, so you would still have 1 action remaining
to use that turn.

Stunned actually just says that "you can't act while stunned." Full stop. Then it describes how it reduces regained actions in detail, which I read as it describing exactly how you lose actions to it.

The confusion comes from whether counting actions that you cannot use as Lost actions is the intention of the developers. I don't believe so, as there is a difference made in the book. The other 3 conditions that inflict "you can't act" for example do nothing to reduce the number of actions that you regain every turn, one even lets you use them for mental tasks. These are obviously not Lost actions if that is the case.

Stunned on the other hand specifically calls actions that it "reduces" with the 2nd part of the condition Lost actions. Which is also used as the trigger for the condition ending so long as it does not have a time based duration.

This is where Errata needs to come in: If you are stunned during your own turn, are the actions that you can't use considered "lost"?

I believe the answer is no. But I could be wrong, has been known to happen from time to time.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
beowulf99 wrote:

This is where Errata needs to come in: If you are stunned during your own turn, are the actions that you can't use considered "lost"?

I believe the answer is no. But I could be wrong, has been known to happen from time to time.

I agree that this is definitely the main point of disagreement.

I believe the answer is yes they should as there is no functional difference between lost actions are not being able to act when the duration of the effect is measured in lost actions.

I think we have all laid out our positions as best we can, and it's going to see GM variance until we get some errata to clarify what Piazo actually had intended.

Happy Gaming to everyone. I have nothing more to add to the conversation.


beowulf99 wrote:
1. Stunned includes the "you can't act while stunned" wording so that it applies immediately. Later in the condition there are rules for how to apply Stunned on a timed duration, which if what you are saying was true would in fact make the "you can't act" wording redundant.

This is incorrect. If you've never played the game, you need to know what happens when you're Stunned. That says nothing about when it applies. "You can't act" means that when this condition applies, you don't regain action or reactions.

A lot of your rules analysis is based on your predetermined conclusion. So you're repeatedly trying to interpret the rules in a way that confirms what you believe to be true, rather than being objective about how it might be interpreted.

Quote:
2. You are still grouping Stunned with Quickened and Slowed in it's entirety. But there is not one single shred of evidence to support that Stunned in it's entirety works in a similar fashion to slowed. The reduction of regained actions is the only part of Stunned that would work similarly to Slowed.

The burden is on you to prove that Stunned is the only condition in the book which applies immediately and also follows the rules for Quickened and Slowed.

Could it? Sure, but as others have noted, you're then introducing a condition which is far more complicated than other conditions i.e. it applies immediate but then must be bled off in subsequent rounds, or simply last a number of rounds. So Stunned 1 could last 1, 2, or even 3 rounds. That doesn't read/sound like how Paizo wants Conditions to work.

When I look at the Playtest, Stunned was initially a Condition that applied immediately. Then, Paizo decided they wanted to enable things like Stunned X, but they wanted to keep it like Slowed for rules simplicity i.e. all "gaining/losing" Conditions work the same, they start on the victim's turn. But as others have noted, this creates the contrary rule where Stunned is the only Condition that applies immediately, but doesn't bleed off until the start of your turn. This makes Stunned more complicated and much more powerful when attached to a Reaction.

Quote:
3. I am fine with doing so as a house rule.

Until Paizo confirms how this works, everyone is using a house rule, yourself included. .


N N 959 wrote:

The burden is on you to prove that Stunned is the only condition in the book which applies immediately and also follows the rules for Quickened and Slowed.

Could it? Sure, but as others have noted, you're then introducing a condition which is far more complicated than other conditions i.e. it applies immediate but then must be bled off in subsequent rounds, or simply last a number of rounds. So Stunned 1 could last 1, 2, or even 3 rounds. That doesn't read/sound like how Paizo wants Conditions to work.

When I look at the Playtest, Stunned was initially a Condition that applied immediately. Then, Paizo decided they wanted to enable things like Stunned X, but they wanted to keep it like Slowed for rules simplicity i.e. all "gaining/losing" Conditions work the same, they start on the victim's turn. But as others have noted, this creates the contrary rule where Stunned is the only Condition that applies immediately, but doesn't bleed off until the start of your turn. This makes Stunned more complicated and much more powerful when attached to a Reaction.

And I feel that I have made my case pretty clear. You have not provided one shred of credible evidence that my interpretation is not true or possible. Only stating that the intention of stunned doesn't feel to be to work that way. That or claiming that the sidebar disagreeing with the reading of Stunned somehow overrules Stunned, even though Specific Rules override General.

But that is just you're feeling on it. Almost like you are not being objective when reading the rule, and continuing to argue with out considering my interpretation without bias.

You are the party here refusing to step back from your own preconceived notion of how the rule is intended to work, grouping stunned whole hog with slowed instead of considering that it may in fact work differently while still overriding it.

I have considered your interpretation and find it to be the least likely of the possible intentions of the rule. If a condition states in clear words that you cannot act whilst having that condition, what part of that sentence leads you to believe that you can still act during your own turn when you have that condition applied to you?

We know that Paizo intends Stun to be able to be gained mid turn, as there is a Snare that applies Stunned. So you cannot tell me that they didn't consider how the condition should be applied in that circumstance, and I don't believe that it fits with the two other conditions that tell you in simple terms that they do not apply during your turn. I believe that the second effect of Stunned doesn't apply until your next turn however, which is the primary point of argument at this point.

To me this is pretty clear, and I have read and reread the sidebar, the gaining and losing actions section of "actions" as well as the Stunned condition. To me the most likely intention is the one that I keep posting.

So at this point I think we have to agree to disagree and wait for errata.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Like I stated before, its rather silly if you get stunned during your turn and your able to Stride 3 times THEN the stun kicks in.

Now I could see it working like this: You start to run, Monk does a stunning strike in which you get a Stunned 2 Condition which would eat up 2 of your actions so now you can only Stride for 1 action instead of 3.

Its all rather wonky IMHO but yes we will have to wait till next year for an Errata (don't see it coming out any time soon).


beowulf99 wrote:
You are the party here refusing to step back from your own preconceived notion of how the rule is intended to work, grouping stunned whole hog with slowed instead of considering that it may in fact work differently while still overriding it.

Sorry to disappoint, but I don't have any preconceived notions. I came into the thread with no a priori opinion and simply read through the logic presented. This hasn't come up in any of my games as a player or GM, so I am reading the rules objectively.

Quote:
You have not provided one shred of credible evidence that my interpretation is not true or possible.

There is currently no "evidence" for either position that I am aware of, just rules. And to the contrary, I have said it is possible that Paizo intendeds for Stunned to work they way you think it does.

Quote:
If a condition states in clear words that you cannot act whilst having that condition, what part of that sentence leads you to believe that you can still act during your own turn when you have that condition applied to you?

The sidebar which says these Gain/Lose abilities don't apply until the victim's turn, the fact that Stunned is grouped with them, and nothing which asserts or corroborate the idea that Stunned is intended to have two independent conditions: one which applies immediately and stops all actions, and the other which consumes actions but doesn't start until the victim's turns. Sure, it's possible it works that way, but no other Condition works that way, Paizo doesn't explicitly tell us it works that way, and Paizo specifically tells us that at least part of the Condition doesn't work that way.

To try and draw my participation to a close, I'll reiterate what others have already said. There are three positions:

1. Laran's suggestion that no part of Stunned takes effect until the start of the victim's turn.

2. Your suggestion that it has two parts, one takes effect immediately and the other, per the sidebar, on the victim's turn.

3. Superbidi' hybrid that it all applies immediately.

Again, as someone else observed, none of these is without some fatal flaws. #3 is the most intuitive, but the one that is clearly not allowed per RAW. #2 Is possible, but it is the most complex and least intuitive. And #1, which does not seem intuitive, but is the simplest and satisfies the sidebar.

None of these is particular compelling, but #3 is clearly not allowed per RAW and #2 seems the least consistent with the style of the rules in PF2. So #1, for me, is the least ugliest of the options and certainly the easiest to apply and to get consistent predictable outcomes.


Krugus wrote:

Like I stated before, its rather silly if you get stunned during your turn and your able to Stride 3 times THEN the stun kicks in.

Now I could see it working like this: You start to run, Monk does a stunning strike in which you get a Stunned 2 Condition which would eat up 2 of your actions so now you can only Stride for 1 action instead of 3.

Its all rather wonky IMHO but yes we will have to wait till next year for an Errata (don't see it coming out any time soon).

They might even choose to change their actions.

"Oh, I'm stunned. I'd better Dim Door away for now."
Really?

On the other hand, my Monks will Ready Flurries. Always. Right?
The actions really need to be clocked immediately for Stunned.
I do not look forward to PFS discussions on this. :(

51 to 100 of 110 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Reactions and Stunned All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.