"you can’t use it again for X rounds."

[shroudb]

There are vaious abilities in the game that have this text.

notably breath weapons, some fear effects, and etc.

usually it's "for 1d4 rounds"

My question is when do you start counting.

So, let's say you are a kobolt that just used your brath weapon as the first action of the round and rolled a 1 on the 1d4 rounds.

so "you can't use it again for 1 round"

does that mean that next round you can use it? or do you skip your next round and can use it on the following one?

[Blave]

I would interpret it as "1d4 turns". So if you use it on your first turn and roll a 1 for the cooldown, you could use it again on turn 3 - which will usually be in round 3 barring any weird shenanigans with Delay or something.

[Claxon]

I think the correct interpretation is that there is a minimum of 1 round where you can't use it.

So I think Blave's interpretation is correct.

[SuperBidi]

I've always counted current round as one of the rounds, as you could use it again in the same round if it's a one action ability.

[shroudb]

SuperBidi wrote:

I've always counted current round as one of the rounds, as you could use it again in the same round if it's a one action ability.

Blave wrote:

I would interpret it as "1d4 turns". So if you use it on your first turn and roll a 1 for the cooldown, you could use it again on turn 3 - which will usually be in round 3 barring any weird shenanigans with Delay or something.

that is exactly my problem as well.

BOTH interpetations seem valid, and i've seen people running it both ways.

[SuperBidi]

The rules state: "For an effect that lasts a number of rounds, the remaining duration decreases by 1 at the start of each turn of the creature that created the effect. This is common for beneficial effects that target you or your allies. Detrimental effects often last “until the end of the target’s next turn” or “through” a number of their turns (such as “through the target’s next 3 turns”), which means that the effect’s duration decreases at the end of the creature’s turn, rather than the start."

From my reading, if you roll a 1, you can reuse it at your next turn.

[Gary Bush]

SuperBidi wrote:

The rules state: "For an effect that lasts a number of rounds, the remaining duration decreases by 1 at the start of each turn of the creature that created the effect. This is common for beneficial effects that target you or your allies. Detrimental effects often last “until the end of the target’s next turn” or “through” a number of their turns (such as “through the target’s next 3 turns”), which means that the effect’s duration decreases at the end of the creature’s turn, rather than the start."

From my reading, if you roll a 1, you can reuse it at your next turn.

Well the creature who created the effect had not created the effect yet on the current turn. So the first chance to reduce the number of rounds is the turn after the creature created the effect.

So there is a minimum of 1 round of not being able to use the effect.

For reference:

CRB Page 455 wrote:

Duration

Most effects are discrete, creating an instantaneous effect when you let the GM know what actions you are going to use. Firing a bow, moving to a new space, or taking something out of your pack all resolve instantly. Other effects instead last for a certain duration. Once the duration has elapsed, the effect ends. The rules generally use the following conventions for durations, though spells have some special durations detailed on pages 304–305.

For an effect that lasts a number of rounds, the remaining duration decreases by 1 at the start of each turn of the creature that created the effect. This is common for beneficial effects that target you or your allies. Detrimental effects often last “until the end of the target’s next turn” or “through” a number of their turns (such as “through the target’s next 3 turns”), which means that the effect’s duration decreases at the end of the creature’s turn, rather than the start.

Instead of lasting a fixed number of rounds, a duration might end only when certain conditions are met (or cease to be true). If so, the effects last until those conditions are met.

[Ascalaphus]

@Gary Bush: but how is that different from any other effect that ticks down? The reference you quote contradicts what you're saying. If you got a "1" on duration it would tick down to 0 at the start of your next turn and therefore it would end.

[Gary Bush]

A good point. As stated in the rules, we need to understand when the effect counts down.

You are correct, if it was at the beginning, it would tick to 0 and be usable the next round.

It depends on if the effect is Detrimental or Beneficial and what the exact language of the effect is.

[Ascalaphus]

Being detrimental or beneficial doesn't determine when it ticks down. The sentence just reminds you that "often" the timing for effects is like this, but that you need to read the individual effect to know for sure.

If an effect doesn't specify, then you apply the general rule which is ticking down at the start of the turn.

[shroudb]

Gary Bush wrote:

A good point. As stated in the rules, we need to understand when the effect counts down.

You are correct, if it was at the beginning, it would tick to 0 and be usable the next round.

It depends on if the effect is Detrimental or Beneficial and what the exact language of the effect is.

the effect we need to count is the "we can't use X for Y rounds"

since the other effect, the one produced by the ability may or may not have a duration to count to begin with.

Take a breath weapon as an example: the "effect" of the breath weapon is instantaneous damage. No duration whtsoever to track.

But you are left unable to use it for 1d4 rounds therafter. Which is what we need to know when it styarts ticking down.

p.s.
i'm already half-convinced by this thread that indeed, "1" means you can use it at next round (that it counts down at the start of your turn).

[mrspaghetti]

To me the intent is pretty clear that a 1 means it's unusable for one round. So I'd say you can't use it on the round following its first use. The "x" value is how many rounds it's not usable.

[shroudb]

mrspaghetti wrote:

To me the intent is pretty clear that a 1 means it's unusable for one round. So I'd say you can't use it on the round following its first use. The "x" value is how many rounds it's not usable.

"1" though means that it isn't usable on the round you first use it as well, since you *could* (if it didn't have this cooldown) theoritically use the ability 2-3 times per round.

So, not usable for 1 round, already restricts you for at least the round you first use the ability.

and as pointed above, durations do decrease at the start of rounds.

eventually though, that's why i made the thread, because it's not that clear.

[Gary Bush]

While it does not really "feel" right, the default count down at the beginning of the turn looks like the correct rule interpretation for abilities/effects that don't state otherwise.

Not really a fan of that but it is what it is.

[Ascalaphus]

I vaguely remember some developer comment that the intent is that it really creates a gap of 1-4 rounds, not 0-3. But technically they phrased it wrong then if that's what they wanted.

In practice I usually run with what I perceive as intended, not what it technically says.

[Gary Bush]

Wish I had the luxury. As a Society GM, I have to go with what is written.

Not a big deal. If I was running a home game, I would change it up.

[N N 959]

Let's look at an actual entry for a breath weapon:

Brine Dragon p.118 wrote:

Breath Weapon Two Actions (arcane, evocation, fire) The brass dragon breathes fire in an 80-foot line that deals 12d6 fire damage (DC 32 basic Reflex save). The dragon can't use Breath Weapon again for 1d4 rounds.

It would seem clear that mrspaghetti is correct. A creature can only uses a breath weapon once per round and then the creature has to wait an additional 1d4 rounds.

shroudb wrote:

"1" means you can use it at next round (that it counts down at the start of your turn).

I don't understand how the counter can begin at the start of the round before you've actually used the breath weapon. Logic would dictate the counter starts on the next round.

Gary Bush wrote:

As a Society GM, I have to go with what is written.

It's been officially stated by Paizo that rules have to be read "in context," not in a vacuum. It would be nonsensical to have a "can't use" mechanic that had no effect. Under what appears to be the popular opinion in this thread, consistently rolling a 1 would mean you could use it every round.

In fairness to the OP, I have also been confused by this language in PF1. In PF2, it seems more straight-forward, or maybe I just never looked at it specifically. Either way, there seems to be confusion on what, imo, is not confusing, so Paizo would do well to clarify this.

[Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich]

What if, for instance, the breath weapon was only 1 action?

There is nothing in the text that says that it can only be used once per round. Merely that it is normally 2 actions, therefore can only be used once per round because of that.

But, what if there was a breath weapon with the same text that was only 1 action? That would give much more relevance to the fact that it can only be used, at the earliest, the next round.

[N N 959]

Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich wrote:

But, what if there was a breath weapon with the same text that was only 1 action? That would give much more relevance to the fact that it can only be used, at the earliest, the next round.

You're right, if it was only one action, it would be more confusing. But it isn't one action, it's two. So we know, unequivocally, that interpreting a die of "1" to mean you can use it next round would be be meaningless as a "can't use" mechanic. The "context" of the rule makes it clear Paizo intends for there to be a gap between uses.

Rules have a way of being confusing in some cases. I don't think this is one of them, but I am not going to begrudge anyone asking for clarification.

[Blave]

I don't really think the "cooldown" of these abilities is an "effect" as per the Duration rules. So I wouldn't apply the "reduce round number by 1 at the start of your turn" rules to it.

[SuperBidi]

N N 959 wrote:

So we know, unequivocally, that interpreting a die of "1" to mean you can use it next round would be be meaningless as a "can't use" mechanic.

It would be meaningless if the rule would be "You can't use this ability again for one round". But it's not the case, it says you can't use it for 1d4 rounds. As such, there is nothing wrong in being able to use it 2 rounds in a row if the dice roll is a 1. The rule is still completely applicable.

Also, your ruling cause a clash with Delay. If I follow your ruling, then I just have to Delay and act immediately to be able to reuse my ability as more than a round would have elapsed. So, clearly, it is intended to end at the beginning of your turn like any other duration. The duration rule is a sanity rule to avoid weird interactions with Delay/Ready.

[shroudb]

N N 959 wrote:

Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich wrote:

But, what if there was a breath weapon with the same text that was only 1 action? That would give much more relevance to the fact that it can only be used, at the earliest, the next round.

You're right, if it was only one action, it would be more confusing. But it isn't one action, it's two. So we know, unequivocally, that interpreting a die of "1" to mean you can use it next round would be be meaningless as a "can't use" mechanic. The "context" of the rule makes it clear Paizo intends for there to be a gap between uses.

Rules have a way of being confusing in some cases. I don't think this is one of them, but I am not going to begrudge anyone asking for clarification.

there are other abilities that DO have 1 action cost though, as an example Dragon Roar (monk feat)

do you suggest that the same exact wording has 2 different effects?

So, no, we do not know "unequivocally" anything.

In fact, maybe the whole 1d4 round design was supposed to be that there's a 25% chance for creatures to chain the ability, hence why it's like that and not like "1d4+1"

Since we do not know what developers Intended, and can only go by what they have Written to infer things, we are still stuck on a "cooldown" that either:
a)follows the "effects" rules so it does get reduced at start of round
or
b)is a completely different mechanic not described anywhere.

for b) the real issue i'm seeing is that if you aren't supposed to be ruling "1" as "next round" you can't be reducing either at start or end of your turn the timer, since both those ways would result to being able to do so.

So, in order for "1" to not mean the next round we need to reduce the timer in some weird spot in the middle of your turn, and that's.. clunky.

[WatersLethe]

Yeah, it's more confusing than I thought. I'm sticking with a minimum one round gap, but I can see the other interpretation. If a player was convincing enough and the ability wasn't *too* strong, I might make a case-by-case ruling.

[Erpa]

So yeah... This is a carried over 30+ years old rule. I've not read anything to dissaude me that Paizo has changed it.

Whether or not it's a 1 or a 2 action ability, if states you can't use it for 1d4 rounds, you cannot use it Round 1 and then Round 2 if you roll a 1 on that d4.

[The Gleeful Grognard]

Cannot use again for 1 round doesn't require you to be able to use it again in that period.

And I sincerely doubt the intent is for the round counting to be different than every other round counting ability in the game.

By having what they have as the standardized language it allows them to use it for 1 action abilities or in future scenarios where there may be quickens that give universal actions.

Barring an example of clear RAI or developer comment RAW seems more sensible to me.

[N N 959]

SuperBidi wrote:

It would be meaningless if the rule would be "You can't use this ability again for one round".

And yet, if you roll a 1, that's exactly what it says.

Quote:

The dragon can't use Breath Weapon again for (1) round.

Quote:

But it's not the case, it says you can't use it for 1d4 rounds. As such, there is nothing wrong in being able to use it 2 rounds in a row if the dice roll is a 1.

Yes, it would be meaningless to say "you can't" use this ability again for X rounds if the very next round you could use it. Paizo could easily put "1d4-1 rounds" if that's what they truly intended. Or they could have worded the restriction differently.

Quote:

Also, your ruling cause a clash with Delay. If I follow your ruling, then I just have to Delay and act immediately to be able to reuse my ability as more than a round would have elapsed.

That's not correct. If you use the Beath Weapon, you can't Delay to avoid the countdown effects.

Core rulebook p.470 wrote:

Essentially, you can’t Delay to avoid negative consequences that would happen on your turn or to extend beneficial effects that would end on your turn.

Paizo is one step ahead of you. You can't use Delay to game the system.

[N N 959]

shroudb wrote:

there are other abilities that DO have 1 action cost though, as an example Dragon Roar (monk feat)

do you suggest that the same exact wording has 2 different effects?

No. I suggested that if the only example is a 1 action ability, it would be harder to determine if the 1d4 rounds was meant to stop you from using the ability multiple times in the same round.

However, since we have abilities that cannot be used twice in the same round, we do know "unequivocally" that the "can't use" mechanic is not meant to stop reuse in the same round.

If Paizo had a list of events that were to happen biweekly, we might not know if that meant twice in one week or every two weeks But if one ore more of those events could only happen once a week, then we know, with certainty that "biweekly" in this context is being used to mean once every two weeks, and that would apply to all the events on the list.

Quote:

In fact, maybe the whole 1d4 round design was supposed to be that there's a 25% chance for creatures to chain the ability, hence why it's like that and not like "1d4+1"

Again, context tells us this isn't true because Paizo has never used that mechanic. The idea that all these "you can't" use abilities are intended to have a 25% chance of being chain-able is decidedly wrong. While Paizo does write ambiguous rules from time to time, we can look at the context of mechanics Paizo uses and that isn't one of them.

Quote:

Since we do not know what developers Intended, and can only go by what they have Written to infer things,

What's written and the context in which it is written. The former has no meaning without the latter. All language is context-dependent (except math?). Rules are no different.

Quote:

a)follows the "effects" rules so it does get reduced at start of round

or
b)is a completely different mechanic not described anywhere.

It's not an "effect." As Gary Bush's quote from the rulebook unambiguously tells us, the breath weapon (itself) does not have a duration, it is instantaneous. Now, there may be effects attached to the breath weapon, and those would be effects, and those would start their clock the round they were created. But the attack itself is not an "effect."

Quote:

So, in order for "1" to not mean the next round we need to reduce the timer in some weird spot in the middle of your turn, and that's.. clunky.

Uh, no. The timer starts on the next round and is reduced by 1 at the end of your turn. It's straight-forward, IMO.

[Gary Bush]

N N 959 wrote:

Gary Bush wrote:

As a Society GM, I have to go with what is written.

It's been officially stated by Paizo that rules have to be read "in context," not in a vacuum. It would be nonsensical to have a "can't use" mechanic that had no effect. Under what appears to be the popular opinion in this thread, consistently rolling a 1 would mean you could use it every round.

Originally, I think I agreed with you. But after looking at it more, I believe the RAW would allow an ability that can't be use for 1 round to be used the next round because of how Duration is defined.

An example.
Hey, I breath on you and I have to wait 1 round to breath on you again. Oh look, it is my turn again. That counter for me to breath again goes down by 1 at the start of my turn and is now zero, so great, I breath on you again.

I don't like that example. But my reading of the Duration rules gives this sequence, and if I GMing a Society adventure, I have to follow the rules as I understand them.

Thank you for showing the breath weapon text. It is very helpful.

[N N 959]

Gary Bush wrote:

An example.

Hey, I breath on you and I have to wait 1 round to breath on you again. Oh look, it is my turn again. That counter for me to breath again goes down by 1 at the start of my turn and is now zero, so great, I breath on you again.

Under that example, you aren't "waiting a round." You're using it every round. There's no waiting involved. It's nonsensical to say you've used it this round and now you "can't use it" for 1 round and the next round you use it??? Your interpretation means that depending on the die roll, you have a restriction that has no effect. I am unaware of any mechanic in the game where the die roll on duration means there is no impact.

Quote:

That counter for me to breath again goes down by 1 at the start of my turn and is now zero, so great, I breath on you again.

You're actually using the rules for "effects" but you're also using it incorrectly. The counter has to already be at 0 at the start of your turn, per RAW. So even using your example, the turn starts at counter of 1, gets reduced to 0 and the effect is still there. The next round, the counter is 0, and there is no longer an effect.

Quote:

Thank you for showing the breath weapon text. It is very helpful.

Your quote of Duration was actually more helpful for me, so thank you.

Regardless, this is another example of things that seem clearcut to some and is not clear cut to others. Paizo should address it.

[shroudb]

N N 959 wrote:

shroudb wrote:

there are other abilities that DO have 1 action cost though, as an example Dragon Roar (monk feat)

do you suggest that the same exact wording has 2 different effects?

No. I suggested that if the only example is a 1 action ability, it would be harder to determine if the 1d4 rounds was meant to stop you from using the ability multiple times in the same round.

However, since we have abilities that cannot be used twice in the same round, we do know "unequivocally" that the "can't use" mechanic is not meant to stop reuse in the same round.

that HAS to be the most arbitrary argument here.

you do understand that the exact thing you said can be flipped on its head like:

"since we DO have abilities that are only 1 action, and thus can be used multiple times per round, we know "unequivocally" that the "can't use" mechanic is meant to stop reuse in the same round"

per RAW, things are reduced either at end of turn or begining of turn. under both reductions, "1 round" means that you can reuse it next round.

i'm not saying that this is RAI, but as written, you need to have some completely out of the blue "cooldown is reduced at some random in the middle of the time period" in order to not have this.

and yes, it needs to be clarified.

[N N 959]

shroudb wrote:

you do understand that the exact thing you said can be flipped on its head like:

"since we DO have abilities that are only 1 action, and thus can be used multiple times per round, we know "unequivocally" that the "can't use" mechanic is meant to stop reuse in the same round"

No, that doesn't work. From the "context" of the game, Paizo has never used that mechanic to limit things to once per round. That interpretation is totally nonsensical.

One round use abilities are given traits like Flourish. They don't use 1d4 "can't use". Again context matters. The rules are written in the context of the others rules. The argument that 1d4 is meant to limit use in the round is simply wrong.

I understand you're confused, but you're grasping at straws here.

[Matthew Downie]

N N 959 wrote:

e to use it 2 rounds in a row if the dice roll is a 1.

Yes, it would be meaningless to say "you can't" use this ability again for X rounds if the very next round you could use it. Paizo could easily put "1d4-1 rounds" if that's what they truly intended.

"0 rounds" would be meaningless, but this does not mean "1d4-1 rounds" is meaningless, even if it becomes meaningless when you roll a 1... Similarly, in a context where "1d4 rounds" is meaningless on a 1, it's still a rule with a meaningful effect three-quarters of the time.

[Matthew Downie]

Erpa wrote:

So yeah... This is a carried over 30+ years old rule. I've not read anything to dissaude me that Paizo has changed it.

Whether or not it's a 1 or a 2 action ability, if states you can't use it for 1d4 rounds, you cannot use it Round 1 and then Round 2 if you roll a 1 on that d4.

Wasn't the rule from PF1 "A dragon can use its breath weapon once every 1d4 rounds"? I understood this to mean that whenever you rolled a 1, it could use its breath every 1 round, which is to say every round.

I think they've changed it for this edition, but it would be nice to have some official clarification.

[N N 959]

Matthew Downie wrote:

Similarly, in a context where "1d4 rounds" is meaningless on a 1, it's still a rule with a meaningful effect three-quarters of the time.

Agreed, but duration on "can't use" isn't that context. For damage, 1d4-1 is used. For duration it is not. I don't think it's even used for "effects."

[Amaya/Polaris]

N N 959 wrote:

I understand you're confused, but you're grasping at straws here.

Please don't condescend. It's rude. Shroudb made their point perfectly well.

The fact of the matter is, there are abilities with the "can't use" mechanic that are 1 action as well as others that are 2 actions. It's unclear whether a cooldown would count as an "effect" and use those rules, and as far as I can find there's no specific rules for such cooldowns. So either go with the closest thing, effect durations — at which point it doesn't really matter if it ends at the beginning or end of the turn because it'll be available by the time the character can act again either way —or go with some other interpretation. It's up in the air for now.

[N N 959]

Matthew Downie wrote:

Wasn't the rule from PF1 "A dragon can use its breath weapon once every 1d4 rounds"? I understood this to mean that whenever you rolled a 1, it could use its breath every 1 round, which is to say every round.

Yes,

Quote:

A dragon can use its breath weapon once every 1d4 rounds,

Quote:

I think they've changed it for this edition, but it would be nice to have some official clarification.

Yes, they did change it to "can't use." That's why, imo, it's unambiguous as to what it means. "Can't use" isn't can't use if you can use it every round.

[N N 959]

Alfa/Polaris wrote:

Please don't condescend. It's rude. Shroudb made their point perfectly well.

There is no condescension on my part. Certainly no more than calling someone's argument the "most arbitrary" when it is based on logic.

Quote:

It's unclear whether a cooldown would count as an "effect"

I disagree. A breath weapon is an attack, not an effect. And even calling it a cooldown, concedes the argument. It can't be a cooldown if there is no actual cooldown????

[Castilliano]

For those catching up to the discussion, we have two ways it can be read (rolling a "1" in these examples):
A. It's one round from this action to the creature's next turn, so after that they've recharged and can use it again in round two.
B. Round one can't be the one round of non-use because they've used their ability this turn. So the round two is the one round, and the creature can use their ability again on round three.

In both cases it's "1 round", it's just a matter of when does the clock start or when does PF2's clocks normally start?
The interpretation of I believe that exact same phrasing had been A for previous editions, though people who support B say that would lead to combat imbalance via chaining of powerful abilities.

My opinion:
-Paizo staff know they kept the same phrasing and intend A.
-PF2 seems to start timers immediately, so for example if a creature cast a one round spell, it'd end at the beginning of their next turn. I don't know of instances that do otherwise.
-I agree some of these abilities are quite strong! And a "1" might be dire, yet the opposite's true about a "4". Waiting until round 6 would be too much. So I'm not sure difficulty makes a good foundation for an argument. To that I'll add that several creatures (i.e. dragons & Hell Hounds) have ways to instantly recharge their breaths, so chaining's not exactly unlikely.*

Counterargument:
-The emphasis does seem on "can't"... *shrug*

*I want to add that I suspect the dragons recharge because it takes the pressure off of whoever got critted if the dragon switches to an AoE. And w/ Hell Hounds, in an environment w/ lots of fire recharging their breath, the PCs are that much more likely to have fire protection. So make of that what you will.

[N N 959]

What's really funny about this rules discussion is that one interpretation results in "can't use" meaning you can't use the ability for some period, regardless of what you roll. The other means you have a 25%, "can't use" is tantamount to "you can use it every round."

But, this is the nature of the rules in games like this, even when Paizo changes the wording to make it clear. I really wish Paizo would address these quickly, so people can move on.

[Gary Bush]

N N 959 wrote:

Gary Bush wrote:

An example.

Hey, I breath on you and I have to wait 1 round to breath on you again. Oh look, it is my turn again. That counter for me to breath again goes down by 1 at the start of my turn and is now zero, so great, I breath on you again.

Under that example, you aren't "waiting a round." You're using it every round. There's no waiting involved. It's nonsensical to say you've used it this round and now you "can't use it" for 1 round and the next round you use it??? Your interpretation means that depending on the die roll, you have a restriction that has no effect. I am unaware of any mechanic in the game where the die roll on duration means there is no impact.

I don't disagree. I did say that I didn't like it but because of the Duration Rules, I am stuck with it.

N N 959 wrote:

You're actually using the rules for "effects" but you're also using it incorrectly. The counter has to already be at 0 at the start of your turn, per RAW. So even using your example, the turn starts at counter of 1, gets reduced to 0 and the effect is still there. The next round, the counter is 0, and there is no longer an effect.

Ok this does give me pause. I start a turn with a counter. That counter goes down by 1. But I can't use an ability that is tied to that counter this turn even if the counter is now 0. Yea, I am applying the Spell Effect Duration math here, but it is implied in the general Duration on page 455. Have to give this more thought because right now it is not making sense to me.

N N 959 wrote:

Your quote of Duration was actually more helpful for me, so thank you.

My pleasure. :)

N N 959 wrote:

Regardless, this is another example of things that seem clearcut to some and is not clear cut to others. Paizo should address it.

Agree 100%!

And as a side note, saying "nonsensical" (you like this word) is same (at least to me) as say "your stupid". While I don't agree with how the rule is written, it does make sense to me. I ask that you find a different way of saying it. Maybe, "It doesn't make sense to me...". That way it cannot be perceived as a slight or an attack.

[Amaya/Polaris]

As was noted before, abilities that have cooldowns and only take 1 action (such as Dragon Roar) are still meaningfully restricted even if they roll a 1 and are interpreted to be unavailable only until the next round...because, you know, you can't use it a second or third time in that round (in the case of Dragon Roar, running to another group of enemies to yell at them too).

And obviously Flourish wouldn't serve that purpose because the point of Flourish is to set aside an entire class of abilities that are powerful and limited to being pulled from once a round, while the point of the unnamed cooldown mechanic is to have variance in how frequently you can use abilities that don't make sense to be consistently available.

Yeah, you have a 25% chance of being able to use the ability in the next round, in that interpretation. You also have a 75% chance of having one or several gap rounds, and probability will win out over time. I don't see much harm in that interpretation, and I don't see it as clear-cut.

[Ubertron_X]

0 - 3, median 1.5
1 - 4, median 2.5

Edit: Wrong percentages...

[Darksol the Painbringer]

The problem with the consecutive breath side is that the restriction only cares that you haven't used a breath activity afterward for that specified time.

If you use a Breath on Initiative X in Round 1, roll a 1, and try to use another Breath on Initiative X in Round 2, you have not had a round where you could not use a Breath, which is clearly not the intention of the ability's restriction.

[LeImmortalRaven]

The thing about whether or not it would tick down at the end of your turn or the beginning does not matter for whether or not you would be able to use it the following turn. If it ticks down at the beginning of your turn and you rolled a one, your next turn begins, that ticks to 0 and you can use the breath weapon again.

However, if it ticks down at the end of your turn and you roll a one, then your CURRENT turn ends and then when your next turn begins you can use it.

No matter if it’s at the beginning or the end, you would be able to use the ability on your next turn.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

The ability states you are unable to use the breath for 1-4 rounds after using it. Which means that you cannot use the breath for 1-4 rounds after you use it. Using it the round after you just used it means you have not had a round (or more) where you have not used it, which means you break the restriction by doing it this way.

If you use it in round 1, and you roll a 2, you must wait until round 4, where 2 rounds where you have not used a breath, have passed. If you roll a 1 instead, you must wait until round 3, where 1 round where you have not used a breath has passed.

[mrspaghetti]

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

The ability states you are unable to use the breath for 1-4 rounds after using it. Which means that you cannot use the breath for 1-4 rounds after you use it. Using it the round after you just used it means you have not had a round (or more) where you have not used it, which means you break the restriction by doing it this way.

If you use it in round 1, and you roll a 2, you must wait until round 4, where 2 rounds where you have not used a breath, have passed. If you roll a 1 instead, you must wait until round 3, where 1 round where you have not used a breath has passed.

Yeah, it seems pretty simple to me. Bringing in whether something takes 1 action or 2 has nothing to do with anything. If it says you can't use it for X rounds after using it, then you can't use it for X rounds after using it. That you can't use such an ability in the very same round is too obvious to even state, regardless of how many actions it takes.

[Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich]

Checking whether the effects are consistent is the reason to test the ruling against 1 vs 2 actions. For, it would only make sense that a rule would operate the same if the action were 1 or 2 or 3 actions.

So...

If the ability that had "...can't use X again for 1 round." and...

If the ability were 1 action and character Y used that ability on the 1st action on their turn in round 1, would it be usable again on the 2nd action of their turn in round 2? Hypothetically 1 round has passed since they used it last.

If yes, then the ruling is based on exactly 1 round passing actions and all.

If no, then...the the ruling detaches itself from the 3-action based economy of the system? So...then what is the ruling using as an attachment to the mechanics of the system?

I am just trying to understand what some of you are rooting your rulings in.

[N N 959]

Gary Bush wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

You're actually using the rules for "effects" but you're also using it incorrectly. The counter has to already be at 0 at the start of your turn, per RAW. So even using your example, the turn starts at counter of 1, gets reduced to 0 and the effect is still there. The next round, the counter is 0, and there is no longer an effect.

Ok this does give me pause. I start a turn with a counter. That counter goes down by 1. But I can't use an ability that is tied to that counter this turn even if the counter is now 0. Yea, I am applying the Spell Effect Duration math here, but it is implied in the general Duration on page 455. Have to give this more thought because right now it is not making sense to me.

After rereading the Turn rules, I have to revise my earlier statement about "effects"

Turns p. 468 wrote:

If you created an effect lasting for a certain number of rounds, reduce the number of rounds remaining by 1. The effect ends if the duration is reduced to 0. For example, if you cast a spell that lasts 3 rounds on yourself during your first turn of a fight, it would affect you during that turn, decrease to 2 rounds of duration at the start of your second turn, decrease to 1 round of duration at the start of your third turn, and expire at the start of your fourth turn.

Originally, I read the bolded part as requiring you to reduce the counter for the effect you had either already created, or were going to create this same round. In other words, "If you created" was referencing something you either had done in a previous round, or were going to do in this round and I had thought it was worded weirdly. However, I now believe that "had created" does, in fact, mean something done in a previous round and is not referring to a spell you go on to create in the same round..

So let's walk through it.

Round 1: Create a 3 round effect. It affects you that turn. Counter is 3.
Round 2. Starts as 3, you reduce the counter to 2.
Round 3. Starts as 2, you reduce counter to 1.
Round 4. Starts as 1, you reduce to 0 and the effect ends at the start of your turn 4, so you aren't affected.

So you are correct with a "beneficial" effect.. If you start the round at 1, then you reduce it to 0 then that round you aren't affected.

But with "detrimental effect, you'd need to start the round at 0.

Duration p. 455 wrote:

For an effect that lasts a number of rounds, the remaining duration decreases by 1 at the start of each turn of the creature that created the effect. This is common for beneficial effects that target you or your allies. Detrimental effects often last “until the end of the target’s next turn” or “through” a number of their turns (such as “through the target’s next 3 turns”), which means that the effect’s duration decreases at the end of the creature’s turn, rather than the start.

Redoing the example for a "detrimental" effect:

Round 1: 3 round condition imposed, you suffer the effects that round. Counter gets reduced to 2.
Round 2. Starts as 2, you suffer effects. Reduce counter to 1.
Round 3. Starts as 1, you suffer effects Reduce counter to 0..
Round 4. Starts as 0, no effect.

Personally, I'm not convinced the "can't use" mechanic is an "effect." It reads to be more of a simple directive "Hey, you can't do X for Y rounds." There isn't even a Trait tag for it.

If we do view it as an "effect" then it would have to be a detrimental effect, and the counter isn't reduced at the start of the turn. This leads to the silliness of whether its a 1 action or 2 action ability. If it's a 2 action ability you aren't under any effect in the round you use it, as you aren't being restricted in that round. Ergo, the counter can't be reduced. You don't suffer the effects until the next round.

Granted, people are trying to argue that the 1 action abilities are being restricted, so the counter would be reduced at the end of that same round. That would mean you have a penalty that has no effect on 2 action abilities in some cases, but will always affect 1 action abilities. If we look at the context of the game, there's nothing that works like that. That isn't a technique employed by Paizo. But you wouldn't know that from reading just that rule.

IMO, and as others have chimed in, the number of actions has to be irrelevant to the analysis and whether there is a realized penalty can't be dependent on it either. It would seem obvious that an interpretation that has the same effect, regardless of the action cost, trumps any interpretation that is action cost-dependent.

Now, there is one other mechanic I saw that further confuses the issue, but it is worded differently and is used in a different context, so I'll not muddy the waters as we already agree Paizo should clear this up.

[Ascalaphus]

It would be needlessly complicated if the following things ticked down in different ways:

- You can do X for Y rounds.
- You can't do X for Y rounds.
- You have X good thing and it lasts Y rounds.
- You have X neutral thing and it lasts Y rounds.
- You have X bad thing and it lasts Y rounds.

If they were all different they'd all need separate rules writeups (which aren't in evidence) and it would also be needlessly hard to remember.

The occasionally-cited detrimental effects clause is also easy to misinterpret.

Durations, p. 455 wrote:

Detrimental effects often last “until the end of the target’s next turn” or “through” a number of their turns (such as “through the target’s next 3 turns”), which means that the effect’s duration decreases at the end of the creature’s turn, rather than the start.

Often means not always. This isn't a categorical rule; it's a reminder to look at how the detrimental effect is written. The detrimental effect itself will list when it ticks down. If it doesn't, then it just uses the normal duration rule that is used for everything else.

Some examples of detrimental effects that tick down in specific ways:
- Stunned is handled at the start of your turn
- Frightened ticks down at the end of your turn

Quote:

Bedazzling (aura, light, visual) 5 feet. A luminous ooze constantly sheds distracting multicolored light. A creature that ends its turn within the aura must attempt a DC 21 Fortitude save or become dazzled until the end of its next turn. On a critical failure, it instead becomes blinded []buntil the end of its next turn.[/b]

Quote:

Failure The creature is fascinated, and it must spend at least 1 of its actions on each of its turns to move closer to the baobhan sith as expediently as possible, while avoiding obvious dangers. If the creature ends its movement or turn adjacent to the fey, it is slowed 1 until the end of its next turn.

Critical Failure As failure, but the creature must spend each of its actions moving closer to the baobhan sith, and if it ends its movement or turn adjacent to the fey, it is paralyzed until the end of its next turn.

So a good way to phrase the breath weapon might have been

You can't use the breath weapon again until the end of your 1d4th next turn.

That's roughly equivalent to "you can't use it again for 1d4+1 rounds" although it's more obvious what the intent was (1d4+1 also causes some people think a minimum 2-round gap is intended..)