If someone is staggered during the middle of the round, the normal rules apply.
The would only have the use of a move or standard on their turn, though swift, free, and immediate actions are still available.
So how does this affect the turn in your specific case?
Well, you interrupted their action (maybe). Either they stop their movement after having used up the amount of movement allowed by a single move action but can't make an attack...
But charge is an action, that they're in the middle of. If you don't interrupt it maybe they're staggered but they get to complete the action they're in the middle of...which largely means they're unaffected by your action.
Personally neither is completely satisfying to me, but I think I would run it as interrupting their action and retroactively downgrading their action to a move, though you could have a weird case where they move further than a single move would allow but...their are weird things in this game.
Personally I dislike abilities that can interrupt other characters actions and wish the game didn't have them at all.
So, stagger isn't the same as stunned. A staggered creature is allowed to do a limited number of things. One of the things they are still allowed to do is charge enemies. So, the enemy suddenly becoming staggered in the middle of their charge doesn't necessarily change anything. At most they may not have enough movement to reach their target in which case they move as far as they can before stopping and their charge simply fails.
If a creature is stunned or staggered while it is in the middle of making a full attack it just doesn't get to take it's additional attacks, at whatever point that happens.
In any of the above cases though, any further actions available to the creature under the new status would still be available to it. Staggered creatures can still take swift, immediate and free actions, for example.
As for the damage from the style. the feat does seem to over-ride whatever amount/kind of damage your unarmed strike would normally do. But because it is an unarmed strike any riders you get on unarmed strikes through other feats/abilities would still apply.
Lord Kailas has a point, though it actually makes it even more complicated.
You can charge as a standard action when you don't have a full action, but are limited to your normal movement speed instead of double.
If you are able to take only a standard action on your turn, you can still charge, but you are only allowed to move up to your speed (instead of up to double your speed) and you cannot draw a weapon unless you possess the Quick Draw feat. You can’t use this option unless you are restricted to taking only a standard action on your turn.
So...their charge might become invalid if they were trying to charge a target farther than their movement speed away. Though I would allow them to attack you, since you would be in range.
That is going with a charge being a sequential action (like a full attack) even though it is a single declared action, which I would probably agree with in 99% of circumstances. You run in a direction, halfway through a full run (x4 speed), you wind up and swing. If someone charged through a "fog wall" or similar sight obstruction just hoping to have a valid target on the other side, I would let them pick then, so the staggered-target-swap makes sense to me.
You can't charge through a wall of fog though, you have to be able to see your target and have an unobstructed route to charge.
Not to say I don't agree with you about what should be possible...but the rules don't really support that part.
But charging, being forced to stop your movement early, and switching to a different target seems...reasonable.
I dunno.
Like I said, I really hate interrupt abilities.
I'd say they'd lose any movement/actions they haven't already made, but don't retroactively lose movement/actions.
Eg. My 11th level Fighter makes a full attack, but is staggered between the 2nd and 3rd attack. Clearly a staggered person wouldn't have been able to make the 2nd attack, but at the time it was made he wasn't staggered. So in this case the Fighter simply loses his 3rd attack.
Likewise in a Charge, if you're stagtered during the charge you can continue the charge, but your maximum movement is reduced. If you've already covered the distance you would have been allowed while staggered then your movement stops at the moment you are staggered. Either way if there is a valid target in range at the point where you end your move you may make an attack (as part of the charge), but otherwise the attack is lost.
It's not specifically covered by the rules, but it's not too difficult a fix.
If I have been unclear, I'm advocating essentially the same thing MrCharisma has described here.
If I have been unclear, I'm advocating essentially the same thing MrCharisma has described here.
yep, this was my interpretation as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
FAQ answers this fairly succinctly.
I would think that if they have already 'spent' all their actions in the turn in which you stagger them that the stagger would affect their next combat round.
If they have only spent one of their standard or move actions when you stagger them then they would lose the one not yet spent for that round.
Edit: Well then my slow typing is trumped by FAQ link. :-)
I don't think the FAQ answers it succinctly, because charge is a special case that is it's own full action which includes movement and an attack, so getting staggered which midway through your full action (which isn't separate actions) is unclear about how it should resolve.
Worse yet, charge can be made as a standard action alone when you are restricted to one...so even if you "retroactively" lost the move action from your turn you would still have been able to charge (half as far) and make an attack...
So again, I stand by the idea that if your staggered midway through your charge you could only move up to your regular movement speed (not double) and you could make an attack at the end of your movement (which you would probably choose to stop moving and take the attack against the guy that just staggered you).
Things besides charging are pretty clear, but charging is a really weird.
I don't think the FAQ answers it succinctly, because charge is a special case that is it's own full action which includes movement and an attack, so getting staggered which midway through your full action (which isn't separate actions) is unclear about how it should resolve.
Worse yet, charge can be made as a standard action alone when you are restricted to one...so even if you "retroactively" lost the move action from your turn you would still have been able to charge (half as far) and make an attack...
So again, I stand by the idea that if your staggered midway through your charge you could only move up to your regular movement speed (not double) and you could make an attack at the end of your movement (which you would probably choose to stop moving and take the attack against the guy that just staggered you).
Things besides charging are pretty clear, but charging is a really weird.
Well I did say 'fairly' succinctly, not perfectly. It perfectly answers the first question by the OP for the general case.
What happens if you stagger someone in the middle of their turn?
For the specific case of charge I personally would rule as you and others have above:
Could their charge have been completed within the special case of a standard action charge? If yes, complete the charge with attack. If no, move up to your movement speed and your turn ends (other than quick/free actions).I was a little surprised to see no one had yet referenced the FAQ in this thread as at least the basis for any discussion.
I was a little surprised to see no one had yet referenced the FAQ in this thread as at least the basis for any discussion.
I didn't know that exact FAQ, and it honestly didn't occur to me to check =P
But thanks, personally I think that answered it.
I don't think the FAQ answers it succinctly, because charge is a special case that is it's own full action which includes movement and an attack, so getting staggered which midway through your full action (which isn't separate actions) is unclear about how it should resolve.
"you would immediately gain the staggered condition, which would prevent you from taking any actions that violate the staggered condition's limitations." The individual attacks during a full-attack actions aren't seperate action in regard to the game term "action", either, which means that the FAQ must use the term literal. And at that point, everything is clear: If you become staggered while doing something that would be impossible to do for a staggered character, you have to stop immediately. If your action (game term this time) would be possible for a staggered character, you can complete it.
So (as Cavall said) if you have moved no more than your movement speed, you can still finish the charge action, if you have move more than that, you have to immediately stop your action (which means no attack).
I don't think the FAQ answers it succinctly, because charge is a special case that is it's own full action which includes movement and an attack, so getting staggered which midway through your full action (which isn't separate actions) is unclear about how it should resolve."you would immediately gain the staggered condition, which would prevent you from taking any actions that violate the staggered condition's limitations." The individual attacks during a full-attack actions aren't seperate action in regard to the game term "action", either, which means that the FAQ must use the term literal. And at that point, everything is clear: If you become staggered while doing something that would be impossible to do for a staggered character, you have to stop immediately. If your action (game term this time) would be possible for a staggered character, you can complete it.
So (as Cavall said) if you have moved no more than your movement speed, you can still finish the charge action, if you have move more than that, you have to immediately stop your action (which means no attack).
I'm not sure I agree with your conclusion But I can understand how you reach it.
This is definitely a rough edge of the rules and likely to be interpreted slightly different by GMs for how it affects charges.
Specifically, you're saying you wouldn't allow the attack if you'd moved more than you single movement speed and MrCharisma and myself both believe you'd still get the attack.
So (as Cavall said) if you have moved no more than your movement speed, you can still finish the charge action, if you have move more than that, you have to immediately stop your action (which means no attack).Specifically, you're saying you wouldn't allow the attack if you'd moved more than you single movement speed and MrCharisma and myself both believe you'd still get the attack.
Hmmm... i think by the strictest reading Derklord is right.
I do think this is an edge case though, so I could see that being ruled either way.
With GM's call whether to allow a switch of target to the "stagger-er" in the event the charge cannot be completed, provided that results in a charge that would be legal under the Staggered condition.
Does that sound about right?
Mostly, but I would argue that you can attack any target within range at the spot you end your movement from charging.
In most cases that would be the person who causes you to be staggered, but maybe there's someone else you'd rather attack.
|
That is going with a charge being a sequential action (like a full attack) even though it is a single declared action, which I would probably agree with in 99% of circumstances. You run in a direction, halfway through a full run (x4 speed), you wind up and swing. If someone charged through a "fog wall" or similar sight obstruction just hoping to have a valid target on the other side, I would let them pick then, so the staggered-target-swap makes sense to me.
A charge is x2 movement, not x4. x4 is a Run full round action, it doesn't allow attacks and when you perform it you lose your dexterity bonus to AC.
First of all, I want to thank everyone for weighing in on this!
Also, props to bbangerter for finding the FAQ!
So, the consensus regarding the Charge scenario seems to be:
If the already-completed movement from the Charge + remainder can be completed under the rules for a "standard action" charge (i.e. a charge legal while staggered), the charge can carry on. Otherwise, the charge ends.
With GM's call whether to allow a switch of target to the "stagger-er" in the event the charge cannot be completed, provided that results in a charge that would be legal under the Staggered condition.
Does that sound about right?
Pretty much.
If you start and action and it's somehow capable of being completed, you complete it. If it's not, you don't.
As you say, the fuzzy area is the idea of changing targets in the middle of a charge. You're going to get table variance. I'm of the opinion that charging involves declaring a target, and that's who you're charging. To me, it'd be similar to an archer declaring they're taking a shot on a target, provoking by making a ranged attack, getting interrupted by an invisible foe (who is now visible), realizing what they were planning to shoot is an illusion and asking to change their shot to hit the (now visible) foe. Um... no. Target declared. On the other hand, if someone says their PC moves forward 30ft, but I stop them and tell them they hit an invisible thing after 5ft, I wouldn't prevent that player from redirecting their PC around the obstacle, because I don't view 30ft of linear movement as one uninterruptible declaration... it's a series of changes from square to square, each of which can be chosen individually. But again, table variance.
|
|
First of all, I want to thank everyone for weighing in on this!
Also, props to bbangerter for finding the FAQ!
So, the consensus regarding the Charge scenario seems to be:
If the already-completed movement from the Charge + remainder can be completed under the rules for a "standard action" charge (i.e. a charge legal while staggered), the charge can carry on. Otherwise, the charge ends.
With GM's call whether to allow a switch of target to the "stagger-er" in the event the charge cannot be completed, provided that results in a charge that would be legal under the Staggered condition.
Does that sound about right?
Pretty much.
If you start and action and it's somehow capable of being completed, you complete it. If it's not, you don't.
As you say, the fuzzy area is the idea of changing targets in the middle of a charge. You're going to get table variance. I'm of the opinion that charging involves declaring a target, and that's who you're charging. To me, it'd be similar to an archer declaring they're taking a shot on a target, provoking by making a ranged attack, getting interrupted by an invisible foe (who is now visible), realizing what they were planning to shoot is an illusion and asking to change their shot to hit the (now visible) foe. Um... no. Target declared. On the other hand, if someone says their PC moves forward 30ft, but I stop them and tell them they hit an invisible thing after 5ft, I wouldn't prevent that player from redirecting their PC around the obstacle, because I don't view 30ft of linear movement as one uninterruptible declaration... it's a series of changes from square to square, each of which can be chosen individually. But again, table variance.
Just to be clear, an attacker (regardless of the weapon) can change the target after each attack.
Are you saying that they have to declare the target of all their attacks before they make the first attack, or are you saying that they should declare the target of the specific attack they are rolling just before rolling the dice?
For a charge, you have to declare the target before you start it, so there is no option to change it.
Cavall got what I meant.
I was talking about a single, specific attack... because that has the closest parallel to a charge.
In a full attack situation, you can designate what to do with each attack. Heck, I've had plenty of cases where someone's declared a full attack, dropped their foe after the first hit, and I encourage them to treat that as a standard action, leaving them a move if they wish. Pretty sure that's just a house rule, but it seems reasonable.
Heck, I've had plenty of cases where someone's declared a full attack, dropped their foe after the first hit, and I encourage them to treat that as a standard action, leaving them a move if they wish. Pretty sure that's just a house rule, but it seems reasonable.
Nope, that's the official rule.
There are some cases where the person has to declare a full-attack action in order to get certain benefits (TWF, Rapid-shot, Spell-combat, etc). In those cases they technically can't get their move action back if they drop their foe on the first attack, but if you're ok with it as a GM then go for it. It's unlikely to break anything if you let them do this.
Just to clarify for myself, as I've run into this problem too.
The FAQ appears to be saying that action resources aren't spent until the action is completed. You aren't paying for the charge until it's finished, so interrupting the charge ends the full round action at whatever point you are in completing it.
I don't think it allows for redirecting a charge. Maybe charge actions become partial charge actions when you only qualify for a standard action, but I don't see why any other parameters would change.
The FAQ appears to be saying that action resources aren't spent until the action is completed.
What? It says the exact opposite!
"If an AOO or other interrupting effect reduces what actions I can take on my turn, does this reduction apply immediately?
Yes, even if it interrupts or limits your in-progress."
|
|
Just to clarify for myself, as I've run into this problem too.
The FAQ appears to be saying that action resources aren't spent until the action is completed. You aren't paying for the charge until it's finished, so interrupting the charge ends the full round action at whatever point you are in completing it.
I don't think it allows for redirecting a charge. Maybe charge actions become partial charge actions when you only qualify for a standard action, but I don't see why any other parameters would change.
Maybe we use the term "spent" in a different way, but to me, the FAQ says the opposite.
To me "spent" meant that the action has been used up, even if it wasn't resolved or completed.
To make an example, if someone takes an attack action to shot an arrow against a target, and that target has a readied action of "if someone makes a ranged attack against me, I move behind total cover", the archer attack action is "spent" even if it is not resolved.
The whole charge/staggered thing maybe can be better envisioned with an RL example:
Abe rush Charlie that is a few yards away to tackle him, Bob try to trip him but is only partially successful, kicking Abe shin and unbalancing him. While Abe can continue his movement he is slowed and Charlie has a better chance to move away before Abe reaches him.
If we translate that into game terms
Abe charge Charlie
Bob attack Abe and stagger him
Abe charge is reduced to a standard action (but is still a valid charge as it is possible to make standard action charges if you are limited to an action/round). If Charlie is in range of the standard action charge Abe can complete it and make his attack, if he isn't in range he move as far as he can go, respecting the charge rules, and his round end.
The FAQ appears to be saying that action resources aren't spent until the action is completed.What? It says the exact opposite!
"If an AOO or other interrupting effect reduces what actions I can take on my turn, does this reduction apply immediately?
Yes, even if it interrupts or limits your in-progress."
I'll try to put it more clearly.
If you pay the full round action price at the beginning of the action, then losing the ability to pay the full round action price is irrelevant. We know this version isn't true as you can end an action by removing the actors ability to pay for the action as per the FAQ.
If the full round action price is payed at the end of the action, even if the action ends in an unexpected way, then the action can be interrupted when the full round action price can no longer be payed. The action ends, and the full price of the intended action is spent.
Is this the opposite of what the FAQ is saying?
|
|
Paying the "price" of an action in no way guarantees that you can complete the action. You simply get the right to try to do it.
If some factor stops you from completing it it is your loss.
Let's say I buy ice cream. After a couple of licks, I drop it. I have paid the price in full, in advance, but I am unable to eat all the ice cream.
If you'd already spent the price, then you couldn't be stopped by no longer being able to pay the price and would need to be stopped in some other way.
If you bought the ice cream, you already lost your ice cream money, so you'd still have your ice cream even if someone stole your wallet. Someone could still steal your ice cream.
Yeah I'm not following ErichAD here either.
If you charge someone 50 feet away and are tripped after 30 feet you don't get to finish the charge.
Likewise if you charge someone 50 feet away and are staggered after 30 feet then you don't get to finish the charge (assuming normal 30 foot movement speed).
If you charge someone 30 feet away and are staggered after 20 feet you CAN finish the charge, because your staggered self could have performed that charge anyway.
I'm trying to work out when the action is being spent. I'll try one more time but it's probably not worth spreading a headache.
-You spend actions when you want to do something in combat. If you want to charge, you spend a full round action to charge. At what point in your turn is that action being spent?
- -If you spend the full round action before the charge, then those actions aren't there to lose. We know this isn't the case, as gaining the staggered condition ends your charge.
- -If you spend the full round action after the charge, then you have those actions till the end of the charge and can lose them during the charge. This prevents you from continuing the action as you no longer have the resources to do so.
The question becomes, "what resources are spent when you take part of a full round action but can no longer afford a full round action by the end of that action?" Are you left with the resources that you would have had left had you completed that action, or can you recommit the resources to a new action? In this case, do you have only free and swift actions remaining as if you'd charged, or can you respend the standard action on something similar to what you've already done.
Partial charge is a special case available to people who can only take a standard action, but there's no reason that I'm aware of to think that a full round action automatically converts to a standard action if the full round action version is no longer available.
I think I see the problem.
You're assuming the action is "spent" either before or after the action occurs. It isn't. It's spent during.
The full-attack is a good example. If you make a single attack you can then decide whether to continue attacking (turning the action into a full-attack action for the round), or to move (meaning the attack you made was a standard action attack).
There are some actions where you have to commit beforehand (Vital strike, spell-combat), but generally you aren't committing to a "full-round-action" or a "standard action", you're simply committing to an "attack".
Similarly with a charge, you aren't committing to a "full-round charge" or a "standard action charge", you're just committing to a "charge".
If you become staggered during the "charge" then you can no longer continue a "full round charge", but could still continue a "standard action charge". If the target of your "charge" is within range of a "standard action charge" then you have no problems.
Does that help?
I think I see. While the "spent during" description doesn't really make sense to me it's unnecessary if both charges are interchangeable. The interchangeable charges mean you can leave the cost as spent after the action without problems.
It was my impression that a full charge needed to be declared due to every requirement of the attack needing to be stipulated before the action happens. The requirement that you move to the nearest possible square from which you can attack your opponent pretty much nails down every parameter. However, if you're charging and it takes whatever actions you have available, then it works out well enough.
There's still the requirement that you not draw a weapon during movement for a partial charge, but all that would mean is that the charge ends without the option of a partial charge if you drew a weapon. Right?
I came to this thread because I have something of the opposite situation. An NPC cast the spell Reckless Infatuation on a PC, who failed the save. The object of the PCs infatuation was more than 30 feet away at the time the spell took effect.
For reference, the spell description says, "You fill your target with feelings of intense infatuation for a specific individual known to the target. At the time of the casting, you designate a single creature as the focus of the target’s desire. Thereafter, the target does all it can to remain within 30 feet of the object of its desire. If the target moves outside this range, it gains the staggered condition until it is again near the focus of its desire."
On the PC's turn, he moved toward the object of his affection and ended the move action within 30 feet her. Does that mean the character is no longer staggered and can take an attack action?
Following the logic of what was discussed above, it would seem that if something removes the condition that imposes the staggered condition before the character's turn ends, then it is as if they never had the condition.
At least that makes sense from a RAW perspective. But if the point of the spell is that the person is so distracted by being far from their 'love' that they can't focus enough to do two things in sequence, then doing the move action takes up their turn (in the sense that it takes close to six seconds to take the action). If so, this makes it unreasonable that a character could suddenly have time to do in a fraction of a second what normally takes 3 seconds. I think this is the RAI interpretation for the spell.
It seems one could interpret that ending his turn within 30 feet of his 'love' means the PC starts his next turn without the staggered condition. And the spell guarantees he not try to move away from his 'love' (unless that would point him in danger, in which case he gets another save).
If you were not staggered at the start of the turn, you could move and then make an attack or do any other standard action, but presumably it would take less time to do the move, leaving time to attack or cast or whatever. In this interpretation, it makes sense that one could have the staggered condition imposed mid action, but not have it removed mid-action.
The answer here is important to the game scenario, because the target of the PCs affection herself has been affected by a similar spell, Unadultered Loathing, which makes her need to be at least 60 feet away from the first PC or she gains the nauseated condition.
This condition places a limit on the character similar to staggered, except she can only take a move action. So the situation could come up where she starts her turn with the nauseated condition, moves far enough away to end the condition, and then presumably could take a standard action.
While this is all due to magic and hence any rules could apply, I think it is simpler to rule that if the character starts the round with a condition that limits the kinds of action that can be taken, that limit remains in affect until the end of the turn, even if within that limited action he/she can remove the condition that initially imposed the condition. The result of removing the condition is that they start their next turn without the condition and can act normally then.
The point of casting these two spells (the NPC in this case was a Dawn Piper) is to take both PCs out of the action because they are at cross purposes.
I came to this thread because I have something of the opposite situation. An NPC cast the spell Reckless Infatuation on a PC, who failed the save. The object of the PCs infatuation was more than 30 feet away at the time the spell took effect.
For reference, the spell description says, "You fill your target with feelings of intense infatuation for a specific individual known to the target. At the time of the casting, you designate a single creature as the focus of the target’s desire. Thereafter, the target does all it can to remain within 30 feet of the object of its desire. If the target moves outside this range, it gains the staggered condition until it is again near the focus of its desire."
On the PC's turn, he moved toward the object of his affection and ended the move action within 30 feet her. Does that mean the character is no longer staggered and can take an attack action?
I would rule yes. Partly because it's consistent and makes sense. But also partly for balance and flavor purposes.
If the target is forced to move close to their infatuatee in order to regain their standard action, they've suffered the purpose of the spell. The spell isn't intended to cause staggering. It's intended to cause the target to want to remain near their infactuatee. (Yes, I know it's not a word, but it works.) If the PC complies with the purpose of the spell, they've been punished as designed. Leaving them staggered for even one round is double-dipping, where they are punished for compliance and non-compliance. At that point... why bother trying to comply? Just be staggered and distant since there's no difference.
I'd mentally break this down to the action level. When the target starts their turn, they have a move or a standard (plus free and swift actions), with the other suppressed due to the spell. Once they've moved within 30ft, they re-evaluate what actions remain to them. The character is no longer staggered, so now has a standard available to them, along with swift and free.
But they were not staggered for the first part. They have 15 feet left of movement, I'd say they could continue another 7.5 ft post stagger before they were out of movement. The stagger doesn't affect you retroactively.The only thing I've to add is that if they made a full charge and were staggered (thus reduced to one move) I wouldnt let them charge attack if they moved further than their normal singular move.
So if they could go 40 and did 25, that's it. If they were stopped at 20, as pointed out that's standard action charge and still get an attack.
That part of the thread was last year. A new question was posed by Clebsch RoW.
@Clebsch RoW - I believe the character would get their standard action back mid-trun by moving closer to their "desired" person.