| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The issue lies in abilities that apply the stunned condition and can be used with the ready action, which is only flurry of blows with stunning fist and silencing strike, as far as I am aware.
Normally, you would need to be stunned 3 (or 4 when quickened) to lose all actions on your turn. But that is not the case when you are stunned on your turn. The moment the stunned condition is applied to you, you can't act, i.e. you can't use any actions, until you are no longer stunned. Which, due to how the "losing action" system works, is the start of your next turn. So if you get even stunned 1 on your own turn, you effectively lose that turn.
So just ready one of those actions with any trigger like "when I see the enemy do anything", "when they get into range" or something like that. Bam, good hit chance and a very decent chance to remove their entire turn plus any reactions.
I think it is very obvious how abusable this is. This looks like definite errata material.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stunned with a value operates differently to Stunned with a duration. Stunned with a duration means you can't act, Stunned with a value makes you lose a set number of actions.
Here is a direct quote from the core rulebook:
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.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stunned with a value operates differently to Stunned with a duration. Stunned with a duration means you can't act, Stunned with a value makes you lose a set number of actions.
Here is a direct quote from the core rulebook:
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.
I think the OP is taking this into consideration.
The Relevant Rules:
Source
Core Rulebook pg. 622 2.0
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. Source
Core Rulebook pg. 622 2.0
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.
In the OP's reading, gaining the Stunned 1 condition on your own turn would leave you 'unable to act' until you lose the 1 action, which you won't do until your next turn per the 'gaining and losing actions' sidebar: Thus, you'd end up 'unable to act' this turn, plus you'd lose one action next turn.
An alternate interpretation is that you don't actually gain the stunned condition until you have finished your current round, which is more balanced mechanically but doesn't exactly make a lot of sense...EDIT: OP, remember that Stunning Fist is an incapacitation effect and should be fairly ineffective against serious foes (higher level opponents will need to critically fail their save to become Stunned 1). Monk
Prerequisites Flurry of Blows
The focused power of your flurry threatens to overwhelm your opponent. When you target the same creature with two Strikes from your Flurry of Blows, you can try to stun the creature. If either Strike hits and deals damage, the target must succeed at a Fortitude save against your class DC or be stunned 1 (or stunned 3 on a critical failure). This is an incapacitation effect.
Core Rulebook pg. 633 2.0 An ability with this trait can take a character completely out of the fight or even kill them, and it’s harder to use on a more powerful character. If a spell has the incapacitation trait, any creature of more than twice the spell’s level treats the result of their check to prevent being incapacitated by the spell as one degree of success better, or the result of any check the spellcaster made to incapacitate them as one degree of success worse. If any other effect has the incapacitation trait, a creature of higher level than the item, creature, or hazard generating the effect gains the same benefits.Source
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The sentence after the one Taja bolded is pretty unambiguous too:
Stunned usually includes a value, which indicates how many total actions you lose
Stunned 1 means you lose one action, not two or three or four.
There's also this part:
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
Which means that line about being 'unable to act' isn't even referencing Stunned to begin with.
I think the OP is taking this into consideration. [...]Stunned with a value operates differently to Stunned with a duration. Stunned with a duration means you can't act, Stunned with a value makes you lose a set number of actions.
Here is a direct quote from the core rulebook:
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.
Yes, exactly. Thanks for saving me the time ^^
As for the incapacitation trait that both stunning fist and silencing strike have - I know. Both that and the fact that it is a fortitude save - which is very rarely a bad save on monsters - limit the potential somewhat. But since 90% of enemies you will meet will be your level or lower, at least in APs, I don't thinkk that stops these abilities from being game-breaking.
Edit: Just to be clear, I would never run this RAW either, neither for players nor monsters. Jared's solution up there looks good.
The sentence after the one Taja bolded is pretty unambiguous too:
Stunned usually includes a value, which indicates how many total actions you loseStunned 1 means you lose one action, not two or three or four.
There's also this part:
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 themWhich means that line about being 'unable to act' isn't even referencing Stunned to begin with.
Stunned, as helpfully referenced by Taja, literally states "You can't act while stunned.". Ergo, as long as you have the stunned condition you can't use any actions. You do not technically lose the actions the same way as not regaining them on your turn, you simply cannot use them. It amounts to the same thing, though. There is no ambiguity here.
The stunned condition uses the exact same phrasing as all other instances of "you can't act" and that sidebar is the only vague indication that we have to the opposite. Since the phrasing wasn't errata'd to date - and a condition would be high priority - we have to assume that the text of the condition is accurate and intended.
Now, do I think that stunned would probably be perfectly fine if you you just removed the "you can't act" part? Definitely. Essentially slowed plus suppression of an enemies' reaction? Looks good. But that is not what the rules say at the moment.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
we have to assume that the text of the condition is accurate and intended.
And the multiple pieces of rules text that completely and unambiguously say that that's not how stunned works and clarify what actually happens?
I don't see how any amount of errata would help if we're intentionally ignoring parts of the rules to begin with.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its another case where the rules are essentially self contradictory.
Obviously, losing more than 1 action is pretty much brokenly powerful. So I think almost all GMs would rule either
1) The stunned character immediately loses 1 action (which may be problematic if they were interrupted in the middle of an action) OR
2) The character is stunned 1 at the beginning of their NEXT turn
I prefer option 1 myself. Which still makes it fairly powerful as, for example, you interrupt the 0 MAP attack. But then you've taken 2 actions to set up a ready which may never go off so I have no problem with it being fairly powerful
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
The stunned condition uses the exact same phrasing as all other instances of "you can't act" and that sidebar is the only vague indication that we have to the opposite. Since the phrasing wasn't errata'd to date - and a condition would be high priority - we have to assume that the text of the condition is accurate and intended.
...
To be fair, these rules work fine in 99% of cases: Only when you get stunned on your own turn does it breakdown, so an errata might not be that high of a priority...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
we have to assume that the text of the condition is accurate and intended.And the multiple pieces of rules text that completely and unambiguously say that that's not how stunned works and clarify what actually happens?
I don't see how any amount of errata would help if we're intentionally ignoring parts of the rules to begin with.
So, stunned creatures can still use reactions? Unless I am missing something (which is quite possible), the only reason a stunned creature can't use reactions is the blanket "You can't act while stunned" line of the condition text.
It looks like Stunned actually does two things:
- It prevents you from taking actions, and
- It prevents you from regaining actions (either a specific number of actions or for a specific duration).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
we have to assume that the text of the condition is accurate and intended.And the multiple pieces of rules text that completely and unambiguously say that that's not how stunned works and clarify what actually happens?
I don't see how any amount of errata would help if we're intentionally ignoring parts of the rules to begin with.
On one hand - and this is the only thing that actually contradicts it - you have a single sentence in a sidebar, which is not even a rule, just a comparison. It also doesn't even clarify how stunned works, just that it supposedly works differently than actions that say "you can't act".
On the other hand you have the text of the condition itself. And that condition literally references that rule it supposedly doesn't have. It uses the exact same phrasing as other conditions do for the same thing. No additions, no differences and no other possible interpretations short of entirely ignoring an entire sentence. And that same phrasing has survived two errata passes. To top it off, if you ignore that part of the conditions, you literally have the slowed condition. And that is an extremely good indication that your interpretation doesn't work.
I can tell that nothing I say will convince you, but the support for your argument seems rather flimy to me.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the other hand you have the text of the condition itself.
The text of the condition itself tells you that Stunned only deprives you of a specific number of actions, though.
but the support for your argument seems rather flimy to me.
Then how do you reconcile your reading of the rules with the multiple citations in this thread that directly say that's not how Stunned works? Just declaring 'oh those aren't rules' doesn't seem particularly compelling.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since the phrasing wasn't errata'd to date - and a condition would be high priority - we have to assume that the text of the condition is accurate and intended.
No, we really don't have to assume that. Pathfinder 1 still had significant errata-level changes in the CRB by its sixth printing.
Should it get errata? Yeah, clearly. There's a contradiction in the text and it would be nice if that got cleared up.
In the meantime, you have two ways to interpret the text. The one interpretation is that Stunned 1 just costs you an action and it's reasonably balanced. The other interpretation makes Stunned 1 out of turn much more powerful and you complain that it's breaking your game.
You as a GM have to make a ruling what to do with that. This isn't like getting some scripture scholars together to figure out what the holy book meant, and then being forced to do it even if it doesn't work well. This is you making an executive decision on what policy you want to apply in your game.
So if you think the more literal rigorous way of reading it is actually bad for the game - just don't pick that interpretation to use.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's an incapacitation effect with probably not the best DC that requires you to burn two actions and a reaction to pull off.
That honestly seems fine to me, it won't work all that often, virtually never against important foes.
Remember this is happening instead of say, move in, flurry, move away which costs an enemy who fails two actions from stun and having to move anyway.
Readying your flurry gets you a potential extra denied action, but also means that in the rather likely even you fail you're standing in melee range and eating a full 3 actions worth of enemy abilities instead.
It's an incapacitation effect with probably not the best DC that requires you to burn two actions and a reaction to pull off.
That honestly seems fine to me, it won't work all that often, virtually never against important foes.
Remember this is happening instead of say, move in, flurry, move away which costs an enemy who fails two actions from stun and having to move anyway.
Readying your flurry gets you a potential extra denied action, but also means that in the rather likely even you fail you're standing in melee range and eating a full 3 actions worth of enemy abilities instead.
The problem with the ruling balance-wise isn't necessarily this interaction, but rather a readied Power Word Stun which would remove the turn of any creature of any level not immune to Stun with no save, as well as disabling their reactions and removing the first action on their next turn.
Regardless, the rules contradict in places if you take just a literal reading. There is a bunch of text that states how to handle gaining Stunned in the middle of your turn, which is this exact scenario, that I think should take precedence because it is more specific than the ambiguity within the Stunned condition itself.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion, "Unable to Act" is flavor text being clarified by the following text, the actions you lose are what "Unable to Act" is referring to, otherwise it likely would have listed something clarifying 'act' more directly like "You are unable to take any actions" or whatever.
Because think about it, this edge case is the only time you would be under the effect without the actions being reloaded and the second clause taking effect. There's no other place in which "You cannot act" could even take effect, so unless this feature was intentionally written to allow you to end other people's turns, it makes no sense, and this would be far from the clearest way to convey that singular intention.
On my Condition Cards that I bought from Paizo:
You can't act while stunned. Stunned usually includes a value, which indicates how many total actions you lose from being stunned. When you regain actions, reduce the number you regain by your stunned value. Then, reduce your stunned value by the number of actions you lost.
If stunned has a duration instead of a value, you lose all your actions for the listed duration.
Its basically the same thing that is in the CRB. Not sure how this is confusing?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now, do I think that stunned would probably be perfectly fine if you you just removed the "you can't act" part? Definitely. Essentially slowed plus suppression of an enemies' reaction? Looks good. But that is not what the rules say at the moment.
I don't see it quite like that. Rather that the rules are written in natural English. There is a way to read the rules and it makes perfect sense. Then there are ways to read it that make it contradict itself. Do yourself a favour and read it how it makes sense.
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.
The rules state You can't act while stunned. because stunned is making you not be able to act. You are losing action(s). It is perfectly correct and valid.
The first section You've become senseless. You can't act while stunned. is a description of the condition. It makes perfect sense if you view it as introduction to what the condition is. It is a common technique in language to introduce a topic then go into the detail of it. No one part of it makes sense in isolation but when you take it all together it works.
It is saying "this is what has happened"; then "this is how it is implemented in the rules"
If there was no detail on how you cannot act, then you would have a point. But there is. The rules tell you for the two different types of implementation of stun how you should play it.
Lets look at the wording You've become senseless could actually mean one of three different things. Copied from https://www.merriam-webster.com/
a: UNCONSCIOUS knocked senseless
b: FOOLISH, STUPID it was some senseless practical joke — A. Conan Doyle
c: MEANINGLESS a senseless murder
Which one of these. Not clear. Then read the rest of the statement and hope it becomes clear.
Then You can't act. There is a lot it could mean
1: to take action : MOVE think before acting acted favorably on the recommendation
2: to conduct oneself : BEHAVE act like a fool
3a: to perform on the stage began acting at the age of eight
4: to perform a specified function : SERVE trees acting as a windbreak
5: to produce an effect : WORK wait for a medicine to act
6: to give a decision or award adjourned without acting on the bill
7:of a play : to be capable of being performeda play that acts well
transitive verb
1a: to represent or perform by action especially on the stage
will act the part of Romeo in tonight's play
b: FEIGN, SIMULATE act indifference
c: IMPERSONATE
It goes on.
Senseless and Act can mean a lot of things. But that Ok because the text in the rules goes on to say exactly how it should be handled. Lots of sentences in langauge can be have a twisted meaning if you take them in isolation. Please don't. Take it as a whole. Otherwise, congratulations, you have the essense of it - launch your career in journalism or politics now.
Calling it a contradiction is not right. This problem is only occuring because you are reading it the wrong way.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You become senseless is flavor text.
You can't act is a game effect. Paralysis has the same text, as does pertified. Additionally, stunned for 1 round only has a meaning if "you can't act" is part of the stunned effect.Lots of sentences in language can be have a twisted meaning if you take them in isolation. Don't take these is isolation either and remove the game effect "you can't act". It leads to even more non-sense.
Demoting flavour text to being meaningless is wrong. All the text is valid and helps you to understand the situation. Just because some of the text is more descriptive and some talks in game mechanical language, doesn't mean its wrong or can be ignored.
Since when is You can't act a mechanical game effect? Where is the line? You have drawn the line in the wrong place. If it had gotten into the game technical langauage and said You can take no actions, or it had not gone on to describe what they meant; then I might agree with you.
But that is not the case. Why are you accepting a meaning that has problems when there is a clear non problematic meaning there?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion, "Unable to Act" is flavor text being clarified by the following text, the actions you lose are what "Unable to Act" is referring to, otherwise it likely would have listed something clarifying 'act' more directly like "You are unable to take any actions" or whatever.
Because think about it, this edge case is the only time you would be under the effect without the actions being reloaded and the second clause taking effect. There's no other place in which "You cannot act" could even take effect, so unless this feature was intentionally written to allow you to end other people's turns, it makes no sense, and this would be far from the clearest way to convey that singular intention.
Can’t Act is actually a defined mechanical term
Some effects might prevent you from acting. If you can’t act, you can’t use any actions, including reactions and free actions.
In my opinion, "Unable to Act" is flavor text being clarified by the following text, the actions you lose are what "Unable to Act" is referring to, otherwise it likely would have listed something clarifying 'act' more directly like "You are unable to take any actions" or whatever.
Because think about it, this edge case is the only time you would be under the effect without the actions being reloaded and the second clause taking effect. There's no other place in which "You cannot act" could even take effect, so unless this feature was intentionally written to allow you to end other people's turns, it makes no sense, and this would be far from the clearest way to convey that singular intention.
Can’t Act is actually a defined mechanical term
Some effects might prevent you from acting. If you can’t act, you can’t use any actions, including reactions and free actions.
Good point. But its still just describing in natural language. Its still a perfecting valid high level description. The detail itself gives you the mechanical implementation of how the not acting is implemented.
It is covering two related conditions. Stunned x actions, and stunned for y amount of time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion, "Unable to Act" is flavor text being clarified by the following text, the actions you lose are what "Unable to Act" is referring to, otherwise it likely would have listed something clarifying 'act' more directly like "You are unable to take any actions" or whatever.
Because think about it, this edge case is the only time you would be under the effect without the actions being reloaded and the second clause taking effect. There's no other place in which "You cannot act" could even take effect, so unless this feature was intentionally written to allow you to end other people's turns, it makes no sense, and this would be far from the clearest way to convey that singular intention.
Can’t Act is actually a defined mechanical term
Some effects might prevent you from acting. If you can’t act, you can’t use any actions, including reactions and free actions.
the next line of stunned indicates the value is the total number of actions you lose, this limits the number of actions you can lose to that number and is more specific than the general 'you can't act'. Accepting "You can't act" but then not triggering the countdown until you regain actions at the start of turn would cause you to lose more actions than the listed number.
Actually, the solution is obvious, nothing says you 'only' regain actions on start of turn, the GM (the system really, but the GM practically) would just have you regain your (remaining) actions immediately, specifically because of the potential change from the condition, triggering the stunned clause and forcing the creature to pay it off normally.
This is because the general rule says "The most restrictive form of reducing actions is when an effect states that you can’t act: this means you can’t use any actions, or even speak. When you can’t act, you don’t regain your actions and reaction on your turn." but the specific rule for Stunned says "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"
The only way for the number of actions you lose to match the Stunned value is if you 'regain' however many actions you have left immediately as the Stunned condition hits so you can recount with stunned, every other interpretation violates a rule directly.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
the next line of stunned indicates the value is the total number of actions you lose, this limits the number of actions you can lose to that number and is more specific than the general 'you can't act'. Accepting "You can't act" but then not triggering the countdown until you regain actions at the start of turn would cause you to lose more actions than the listed number.
Yep, this is the issue at hand. Technically, this is legal because 'losing actions' and 'being unable to act' are two separate mechanics.
Actually, the solution is obvious, nothing says you 'only' regain actions on start of turn, the GM (the system really, but the GM practically) would just have you regain your (remaining) actions immediately, specifically because of the potential change from the condition, triggering the stunned clause and forcing the creature to pay it off normally.
Not really certain what you are saying here, but I am fairly certain it directly contradicts the 'Gaining and Losing Actions' sidebar I quoted in post #4 where it specifically states "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."
This is because the general rule says "The most restrictive form of reducing actions is when an effect states that you can’t act: this means you can’t use any actions, or even speak. When you can’t act, you don’t regain your actions and reaction on your turn." but the specific rule for Stunned says "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"
The only way for the number of actions you lose to match the Stunned value is if you 'regain' however many actions you have left immediately as the Stunned condition hits so you can recount with stunned, every other interpretation violates a rule directly.
As does your interpretation, unfortunately...
The sidebar states you can't gain or lose actions on your turn: Any such change doesn't take effect until your next turn.
The sidebar also distinguishes between 'losing actions' and 'being unable to act' as two separate things.
The text of the Stunned condition includes both a general 'you can not act' and a specific 'you lose x actions when you start your turn' text.
If the 'you can not act' is just a general summary of specific 'lose x actions' rule, can you still take reactions and free actions as they are not covered by the 'lose x actions' text?
If the 'you can not act' is a specific rule (as used elsewhere), does this mean you can not act (including reactions and free actions) until you lose the required number of actions at the start of your next (or later) turn?
You even managed to bring another contradiction into this discussion, since the sidebar clearly indicates you still regain actions when you are unable to act, while the Action rules states otherwise: Source
Core Rulebook pg. 462 2.0
Some effects are even more restrictive. Certain abilities, instead of or in addition to changing the number of actions you can use, say specifically that you can’t use reactions. The most restrictive form of reducing actions is when an effect states that you can’t act: this means you can’t use any actions, or even speak. When you can’t act, you don’t regain your actions and reaction on your turn.
This last bit means if being Stunned X makes you unable to act, it will technically last forever.
Ugh, the longer this thread goes on, the messier this item becomes...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yep, this is the issue at hand. Technically, this is legal because 'losing actions' and 'being unable to act' are two separate mechanics.
....
This last bit means if being Stunned X makes you unable to act, it will technically last forever.
You have the logical solution in front of you. You are conflating two things. Because of the expression of the rules.
Yet you can't accept the solution?
If "you can't act" is only flavour text then there's no mechanical difference between Slowed and Stunned other than one being incapacitation for apparently no reason. If it's mechanical, then you can't use reactions or free actions or speak and this makes it worth having incapacitation. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with taking it literally. It's unlikely to cause issues in game because of the incapacitation trait, and rewards clever play.
That last bit that has come up is an issue though, where you do not regain your actions and reactions. That seems like an oversight.
So, back from sleep. And this is exactly the argument that necessarily invalidates any other reading of the condition related to the "You can't act while stunned" sentence. If you remove this sentence, claim its flavour text or otherwise deny it its mechanical impact, stunned is the exact same thing as slowed, making it a superfluous condition.
And "you can't act" is clearly defined:
The most restrictive form of reducing actions is when an effect states that you can’t act: this means you can’t use any actions, or even speak. When you can’t act, you don’t regain your actions and reaction on your turn.
I would also say that that last sentence isn't a problem. You logically reduce the stunned condition before you regain your actions. Thus, you are no longer unable to act, meaning you regain any leftover actions as usual. A bit finicky, but it works.
I would also say that that last sentence isn't a problem. You logically reduce the stunned condition before you regain your actions. Thus, you are no longer unable to act, meaning you regain any leftover actions as usual. A bit finicky, but it works.If anything, I'd say the specific statement regarding regaining actions in Stunned overrides the general statement on "can't act".
That works as well, yeah.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, to make a long thread short, I think here is something people can agree on:
When it is not this edge case, stunned works fine. Basically slowed plus you cannot use your reaction.
The "stunned on your turn" edge case, whether you think it exists or not, doesn't really fit in with the general balance of the game. The solution is up to the table, but you clearly shouldn't lose your entire turn. In the long term, it is probably worth clearing up by errata.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes you are right that stunned on your turn causes some problems. But you can resolve them.
Lets go through the conditions
Paralysed means you can't act. Though there is an exception for some mental things.
Slowed means you regain less actions.
Stunned means you don't regain a fixed number of reactions, and you can't act while stunned. Note that specifically in the stunned condition it says you regain actions at the start of your turn. This is clearly a specific case of the more general instance where you can't act at all (like paralysed pertrified etc). So specific beats general and we don't have any contradiction.
Quickened which goes over all these rules again. It containts this text:
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.
Which is brilliant. If you get quickened, stunned or slowed in the middle of your turn it doesn't affect you till your next turn.
So the problem is solved clearly and directly in the rules. Not in the right spot where you want it but hey, you are used to that by now with PF2.
Sadly the rules continue:
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.
Which on the face of it looks like a direct contradiction.
Stunned say "you can't act" while stunned, this text says that "you can't act" doesn't apply to stunned.If you look at an example like say PowerWord Stun
You see that stunned can have a duration or a number.
The simple way to resolve this is accept that there are two cases here. The term "you can't act" applies when the stunned has a duration - because clearly the stunned rules can't apply here - there is no number to count down. You are forced back to the more general definition which is
Certain abilities, instead of or in addition to changing the number of actions you can use, say specifically that you can’t use reactions. The most restrictive form of reducing actions is when an effect states that you can’t act: this means you can’t use any actions, or even speak. When you can’t act, you don’t regain your actions and reaction on your turn.
But the general "you can't act" rules don't apply when there is a fixed number of actions involved - because the stunned rules tell you which actions you are losing.
I think that sort of makes sense. I am of course regretting defending the position that the rules are clear enough. I should know by now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In summary the never being able to regain actions when you are stunned problem, never occurs because the specific text in stunned tells you that you regain actions and how, overiding the "you don't regain actions" problem.
There is a rules problem in that a separation should be made between stunned duration, and stunned number of actions.
What happens when you stunned number goes over a turn - stunned 4 is possible, or you could be stunned by a reaction in the middle of your turn.
You should apply the "you can not act" limitations to all these cases as there is nothing specific elsewhere to override it.
So you can't use your reactions immediately from when you are stunned until when you duration has expired or your stunned number has been reduced below 1 removing the condition. You may have a reaction but you can't use it.
If you have a normal action left and you become stunned. You also can't use it. Because Core Rulebook pg. 462. Worse it doesn't reduce your stunned number.
|
|
Some posters are really reading too much into the 'Unlike slowed or stunned' clause in the sidebar: As I read it, it is just clarifying that just being 'unable to act' does not cause you to 'lose' actions, so if you can somehow shed the condition during your turn, you can still act normally (unlike being stunned or slowed, where you've already 'lost' your actions as soon as your turn began).
Of course, whatever way you read it, this clashes directly with the 'other' set of 'Gaining and Losing Actions' rules:
Source
Core Rulebook pg. 462 2.0
Some effects are even more restrictive. Certain abilities, instead of or in addition to changing the number of actions you can use, say specifically that you can’t use reactions. The most restrictive form of reducing actions is when an effect states that you can’t act: this means you can’t use any actions, or even speak. When you can’t act, you don’t regain your actions and reaction on your turn. Source
Core Rulebook pg. 622 2.0
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.
So, if I am paralyzed before my turn starts but somehow become unparalyzed during my turn, do I get to take my three actions? Or for a more likely scenario, if I am paralyzed before my turn but lose the condition on or after my turn, can I take a reaction before my next turn comes?
The last line of the pg462 rule seems wrong to me, but maybe I am going off on a tangent here...
Paralyzed is a separate condition that says you can't act other than specific actions. It says nothing about losing your actions, so you regain all your actions then if for some reason you lose the condition yes, you can act out your turn with whatever you want and use your reaction.
It honestly looks like page 462 needs an errata to remove that last sentence, but that's irrelevant to the original question.
Yes I can't see how it is needed at all. If you can't use actions you don't need to worry about regaining them. The only issue being around timing of the condition ending, to make sure the duration of short periods of stun was as intended.
Some posters are really reading too much into the 'Unlike slowed or stunned' clause in the sidebar:
I've never been happy to downgrade any book text, call it sidebar or flavour or whatever. I'm very happy for one set of text to qualify another. Just not to ignore any text.
As I read it, it is just clarifying that just being 'unable to act' does not cause you to 'lose' actions, so if you can somehow shed the condition during your turn, you can still act normally (unlike being stunned or slowed, where you've already 'lost' your actions as soon as your turn began).
It is still possible to become stunned during your turn and then somehow be healed of that condition. Then continue to spend the rest of your actions and reactions. It would take some set up. But it is possible.
Slowed and Stunned are different regardless of the outcome of this debate. Slowed does not automatically decrease in value as you lose actions while Stunned does.
Slowed and Stunned are different regardless of the outcome of this debate. Slowed does not automatically decrease in value as you lose actions while Stunned does.
I mean, technically yes. Practically, it doesn't matter if you lose the stunned 1 condition on your turn, because you "paid off" the actions or if you lose the slowed 1 condition at the start of an enemies' turn. In the end, you have one less action on your turn. It literally doesn't matter before you come to stunned 4 or higher and I haven't even seen a monster or ability that can do that, yet.
If that was all the difference, then stunned 1-3 would still be superfluous. But I think I have made my point in that particular regard.
Slowed and Stunned are different regardless of the outcome of this debate. Slowed does not automatically decrease in value as you lose actions while Stunned does.I mean, technically yes. Practically, it doesn't matter if you lose the stunned 1 condition on your turn, because you "paid off" the actions or if you lose the slowed 1 condition at the start of an enemies' turn. In the end, you have one less action on your turn. It literally doesn't matter before you come to stunned 4 or higher and I haven't even seen a monster or ability that can do that, yet.
If that was all the difference, then stunned 1-3 would still be superfluous. But I think I have made my point in that particular regard.
Maybe I’m missing something but you aren't guaranteed to lose Slowed at the start of the enemy’s turn. My point was that Slowed is technically a permanent version of Stunned, which makes it mechanically different. If you are Slowed 1, you are potentially losing 1 Action, each turn, for the next 10 turns, whereas if you are Stunned 1 you lose 1 Action on a single turn.
Maybe I’m missing something but you aren't guaranteed to lose Slowed at the start of the enemy’s turn. My point was that Slowed is technically a permanent version of Stunned, which makes it mechanically different. If you are Slowed 1, you are potentially losing 1 Action, each turn, for the next 10 turns, whereas if you are Stunned 1 you lose 1 Action on a single turn.Slowed and Stunned are different regardless of the outcome of this debate. Slowed does not automatically decrease in value as you lose actions while Stunned does.I mean, technically yes. Practically, it doesn't matter if you lose the stunned 1 condition on your turn, because you "paid off" the actions or if you lose the slowed 1 condition at the start of an enemies' turn. In the end, you have one less action on your turn. It literally doesn't matter before you come to stunned 4 or higher and I haven't even seen a monster or ability that can do that, yet.
If that was all the difference, then stunned 1-3 would still be superfluous. But I think I have made my point in that particular regard.
You aren't missing something, you are entirely correct. Its only slowed x for one round and stunned x for which the distinction doesn't matter. Sry, my bad :/
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey look, another example of rules being mixed with flavor description that confused thing!
At this point, I wonder if there would be any value in a full-on revision of EVERYTHING in EVERY PF2 book being rewritten with ONLY the mechanical effects included. The whole "You can't act while stunned" statement is literally meaningless as it's immediately overwritten by the actual rules that define how it works.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey look, another example of rules being mixed with flavor description that confused thing!
At this point, I wonder if there would be any value in a full-on revision of EVERYTHING in EVERY PF2 book being rewritten with ONLY the mechanical effects included. The whole "You can't act while stunned" statement is literally meaningless as it's immediately overwritten by the actual rules that define how it works.
Could that maybe be because the second sentence is not actually flavour text? Like is the case for literally every other condition in the rules? And pretty much every feat in the game? And because it exclusively uses rules phrases?
Please forgive the snark, but some things just do not make any sense.
Anyway, flavour text is very helpful for visualising and imagining a given situation and RP in general. Just removing it serves no purpose.
Hey look, another example of rules being mixed with flavor description that confused thing!
At this point, I wonder if there would be any value in a full-on revision of EVERYTHING in EVERY PF2 book being rewritten with ONLY the mechanical effects included. The whole "You can't act while stunned" statement is literally meaningless as it's immediately overwritten by the actual rules that define how it works.
This was how the playtest book was written, and people absolutely hated it.