You can't take Reactions while you are stunned.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And you are right that it is the phrase 'you can't act while stunned' that prevents using reactions.
Some effects might prevent you from acting. If you can’t act, you can’t use any actions, including reactions and free actions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think in the case of stunned it is different if Stunned has a value or a set duration.
If your are stunned 1 its the same from a mechanics standpoint as slowed. When you regaint actions at the start of your turn, you lose some actions/all of them depending on the value of the condition.
If you are stunned for 1 round, you have no capacity to act during that time, including your reaction. No normal actions, no reaction, no free actions of any kind.
The "you can't act" seems to relate to the set duration variation: "If you can’t act, you can’t use any actions, including reactions and free actions."
If that would apply to the value version, the number would be meaningless. Stunned 1 would be the same as stunned 3.
Maybe I'm reading it wrong.
My 2 cents.
That's RAW, but I'm not sure that's actually intentional.
Huh, is this possibly why Daze having a duration is relevant? I always thought it was a typo/redundant that it had a 1 round duration while also causing stunned 1 on crit.
Is 'stunned 1 for 1 round' distinct from just 'stunned 1'? I might reading too much into this.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why do people not read the whole rule / just ignore part of it:
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.
They give you a nice example how to do it.
Also
Some abilities or conditions (such as quickened and slowed) can change how many actions you regain and whether you regain your reaction.
The sentence about not regaining any actions or reactions is mainly because there have been similar complaints in 1e where it didn't explicitly say you couldn't act when you were dead.
Seems no matter how it's been described - someone will take offense. BtW - Slowed 3 also would prevent you from acting and would also result in an endless loop ...
Why do people not read the whole rule / just ignore part of it.
I believe the problem lies in them creating a silly loop of logic.
You are Stunned 1.
You cannot act.
Start of turn comes.
You cannot act, as such you do not regain actions.
You cannot reduce 0 to less than 0. You have not gained any actions to lose to stunned, and it thus stays at Stunned 1.
Repeat.
That's too good to be true for anyone who stuns though. So, everyone can safely ignore the don't regain actions bit and trust it'll get errat'd and we can all laugh about the infinite stun lock bug of v2.1 and v2.2 of the CRB.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The other difference between Stunned and Slowed is what happens if you get the condition on your own turn (usually as the result of a reaction). If you become Stunned on your own turn, the turn ends and you remain stunned until the start of your next turn. If you become Slowed on your own turn, nothing happens immediately because Slowed only eats actions at the start of your turn.
This seems to contradict the sidebar on page 622. It says that if you get stunned on your turn, you don't change the number of actions you have in that moment. This section, unless I am misreading, talks about Stunned (value):
Gaining and Losing Actions
Quickened, slowed, and stunned are the primary ways you can gain or lose actions on a turn. The rules for how this works appear on page 462. In brief, these conditions alter how many actions you regain at the start of your turn; thus, gaining the condition in the middle of your turn doesn’t adjust your number of actions on that turn. If you have conflicting conditions that affect your number of actions, you choose which actions you lose. For instance, the action gained from haste lets you only Stride or Strike, so if you need to lose one action because you’re also slowed, you might decide to lose the action from haste, letting you keep your other actions that can be used more flexibly.
If what you are saying is that the Stunned (duration) takes away all your actions for the duration (normal actions, reactions, free actions) and affects you righ away, then we are in agreement.
The second paragraph of the same sidebar also seems to exclude Stunned (value) as a condition that takes away your reactions, since it only changes the number of actions you regain:
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.
IMHO the text in the stunned condition is confusing and could benefit from clarification.
Another problem with this interpretation, you can ready action Power Word Stun. Set the trigger to be when an enemy (ideally the BBEG) does anything (which will be after they've gained their actions for the turn) and guaranteed block their whole turn and their reactions and their first action on their next turn. Seems a bit strong, maybe too good to be true?
This seems to contradict the sidebar on page 622. It says that if you get stunned on your turn, you don't change the number of actions you have in that moment. This section, unless I am misreading, talks about Stunned (value):
On the contrary, they're restating the rules from 462. One of the rules there is if a condition says "can't act" you cannot spend actions. Stunned has three primary effects.
1) While you have the condition you cannot spend actions (Can't act)2) You cannot use a reaction
3) At the start of your next turn you lose the number of actions corresponding to the condition value.
So yeah, getting stunned on your turn is super bad no good fun times. There are Auras which if you fail make you stunned, not sure if the designers intended it, but yeah, you fail that you lost a turn.
|
|
Why do people not read the whole rule / just ignore part of it:
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.
Because that example breaks the rule just presented above, which was the entire gist of the post you replied to?
Whoosh.
Sorry - what do you mean?
I was citing the Rulebook and you say it breaks the rule?
So the rule breaks the rule or what does your post mean?
That was exactly my point - specific trumps general
But there is a chance we miscommunicate
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, I was reacting to your comment "Why do people not read the whole rule / just ignore part of it".I found it unnecessarily snide. The poster clearly began by agreeing how we SHOULD run the rule and that, yes, this is what Paizo intended.
Guilty about a snide remark. Guess it came in response to
'I can't see any way that you'd be allowed to get out of the Stunned condition when it comes with a value'
Which certainly is hyperbole when there is a box in the CRB giving you an example. So the poster either ignored that box or didn't read it.
I also regarded the 'they (meaning Paizo) screwed up badly' as potentially insulting to the staff here that might have made my reply more snide as warranted.
We can argue if the literal reading overrules an example in the CRB - but I picked up different aspects from that post. But thanks to answer my question - now I at least understand where you are coming from.