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. :(
My question would be for 2 actions and a reacton does that sound unfair? Unfun maybe, but a player will choose to run whatever character they want however they want. But if we are talking balance perspective, I don't think it is bad at all.
Incapacitation for Monks after all not only reduces their attack against a higher level opponent by one step, but also improves the save result of a target higher than your level by one step.
So you hit on crits and they pass on fails, only failing on a Critical failure. This doesn't sound like a very broken build. And if you are arguing that a creature of your own or lesser level shouldn't be taken out so easily... Flurry of Blows plus an attack or two will do just as good of a job of that in short enough order at most levels.
I feel like a lot of the pushback is knee jerk without actually looking at what can apply Stunned effectively. Monks gain access to it early sure, but it is very limited access. And applying it as a reaction is detrimental to your overall action economy imho.
After talking about this at length with my players, we've all sort of decided that the best interpretation of this scenario is the same as Beowulf describes. We don't believe RAW quite gets us to where we need to go, and none of the possibilities fully line up with what seems to be RAI.
Beowulf's interpretation is, I think, the closest you can get to adhering to all the rules set forth on the issue. Not that my opinion has any particular importance, I just wanted to chime in and stop lurking on this thread.
One thing that I think is actually and patently false is the following sentence from page 462:
"When you can’t act, you don’t regain your actions and reaction on your turn."
This seems to be in direct contradiction to the following phrase from paralyze:
"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)."
and also:
"That means if you are somehow cured of paralysis on your turn, you can act immediately."
In other words, saying "you can't act except..." seems completely contradictory to the sentence from page 462. If "can't act" means you don't regain actions... then it doesn't matter what you are subsequently going to use them for.
Granted... this is tangential to the issue at hand, but these two things have been used as evidence for different viewpoints, and it's clear they are in conflict.
Beowulf's interpretation is, I think, the closest you can get to adhering to all the rules set forth on the issue.
The problem I have with that is that the entry on Stunned starts with:
Stunned usually includes a value, which indicates how many total actions you lose
This, to me, is a cornerstone of how stunned is designed to work and Beowulf's interpretation requires us to just ignore this text. That's really problematic and I think makes it impossible for that reading of the ability to be accurate.
That's really problematic and I think makes it impossible for that reading of the ability to be accurate.
I agree it's problematic, but I think any of the possible interpretations are problematic in one way or another.
I disagree it's impossible. It's only impossible if you believe that losing an action is the same thing as being unable to use it... but we know for a fact that's not true, because those two situations are clearly outlined in the book.
Beowulf's interpretation is, I think, the closest you can get to adhering to all the rules set forth on the issue.The problem I have with that is that the entry on Stunned starts with:
Stunned usually includes a value, which indicates how many total actions you loseThis, to me, is a cornerstone of how stunned is designed to work and Beowulf's interpretation requires us to just ignore this text. That's really problematic and I think makes it impossible for that reading of the ability to be accurate.
That is a fair and reasonable argument. I can only say that as Darkfox pointed out that there is a difference between a "lost" action and one you cannot use established in the book.
By far the worse issue is the statement in the sidebar that states that if you can't act, you don't regain your actions and reactions. Someone above pointed that out, and as written, that would make Stunned impossible to resolve. Hence why I believe clarification is needed.
Fortunately we now know that further Errata is on it's way. Hopefully this issue is addressed. Until then its up to each GM to decide what the best ruling is for their table.
That is a fair and reasonable argument. I can only say that as Darkfox pointed out that there is a difference between a "lost" action and one you cannot use established in the book.
I'm sure its been quoted somewhere upthread, but could you direct me to where that difference is established?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sure its been quoted somewhere upthread, but could you direct me to where that difference is established?
That is a fair and reasonable argument. I can only say that as Darkfox pointed out that there is a difference between a "lost" action and one you cannot use established in the book.
Yea Verily.
It is actually established quite clearly within the Sidebar that has been the core of the debate.
Some conditions prevent you from taking a certain
subset of actions, typically reactions. Other conditions
simply say you can’t act. When you can’t act, you’re
unable to take any actions at all. Unlike slowed or
stunned, these don’t change the number of actions you
regain; they just prevent you from using them. That
means if you are somehow cured of paralysis on your
turn, you can act immediately.
The sticking point for me has always been that as worded Stunned both prevents you from using actions like Paralysis, Petrification and Unconcious and also reduces the number of actions that you regain on your turn like Slowed. This puts the rules in an awkward place since according to the core Gaining and Losing actions section:
When you can’t act, you don’t regain your actions and reaction on your turn.
This would indicate that while stunned you wouldn't regain actions ever, which means that you would not be able to reduce the number of actions that you regain.
To me the easiest "fix" is to apply the "specific overrides general" rule and follow Stunned specifically as written. So allow characters to regain actions despite what "Gaining and Losing Actions" states and reduce the number of regained actions by your Stunned value as indicated in the condition itself.
I think the easiest fix would be to errata away the stuff about the start of your turn entirely and just have conditions function immediately.
If a reaction gives you Stunned 1 after performing your first action, you lose your second action and then can take your third action normally. That makes a lot more intuitive sense and feels a lot more consistent with the general spirit of the game than any of the attempts to interpret the current RAW. Knights of Everflame handled Quickened (which is basically just reverse stunned) that way too.
That's definitely not RAW right now, but it's how I'd handle it at a table and how I've seen most groups adjudicate similar effects anyways.
That's definitely not RAW right now, but it's how I'd handle it at a table and how I've seen most groups adjudicate similar effects anyways.
I sort of hope that is how it turns after errata. Maybe my monk will start actually using flurry of blows during his regular turn instead of doing it as a readied action every round.
That's definitely not RAW right now, but it's how I'd handle it at a table and how I've seen most groups adjudicate similar effects anyways.I sort of hope that is how it turns after errata. Maybe my monk will start actually using flurry of blows during his regular turn instead of doing it as a readied action every round.
Do you typically find your turn best used that way? You are aware that you hit opponents higher level than you only on a critical hit right?
I wasn't aware people considered this a legitimately good strategy. Sure against foes your level and below, it's aces. But so is just hitting the opponent on your own turn.
Any boss is going to laugh off your stunning fists.