So what happens while being stunned during your own turn has been debated a lot on the forums but has been a somewhat niche issue (imo) with most ways of achieving it being somewhat jank like using Ready with Flurry of Blows or Power Word: Stun (uncommon), there is also snares that does it.
The crux of the issue being that Stunned is only removed at the start of your turn meaning that it can be interpreted to remove your entire turn since it mentions you cannot act while having the condition.
However now with the Psychic being released the issue is impossible to sweep under the rug anymore as they get multiple talents where this happens.
The amped version of Forbidden Thought stuns the target if they take a forbidden action if they fail a save on their turn, extremely powerful if it is "save or lose your entire turn, your reaction and an action on the next turn".
There is a feat called Violent Unleash which is a free action you can take as you unleash (and unleashing is the first action you take on your turn) to cause Fireball damage around you but you become Stunned 1. Surely this feat is not supposed to take away your entire turn, is it?
It is a shame the CRB errata was so recent as this is something that would have been perfect to address now with Dark Archive releasing very soon, hopefully we can get official word on Paizo on this to fix this.
Meanwhile I'll personally use house rules to make it so you can act during your own turn and lose the ability to do so when your turn ends.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It depends on the stunned. If it is stunned [number], then it only comes into play at the start of a turn when actions are refreshed. If it is stunned for [duration], then I think it would apply immediately.
Note, by default, negative effects tick away their duration at the end of the turn of the affected target.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why does oscillating wave NERF the damage of produce flame on first level by removing spellmod to damage)
It doesn't, in the way that the average damage is the same (I believe it's been mathed out to both being 6.5 damage at level 1), and the +1 the new PF gets is splash damage, so it doesn't just affect the target.
Is it weird? Sure. But I wouldn't say nerf'd. Weakness to fire and weakness to area/splash damage helps out PF in the long run.
Your intended house rule is also how i would rule it, anything else doesnt make sense. You could argue that getting stunned on your turn just makes you lose one action imediatly but in that case Violent Unleash could simply cost an action to achieve the same thing, so becoming stunned after your turn is the only thing that makes sense.
I think Violent Unleash can't thematically be an action because unleashing psyche is a free action that happens first. By the time you tried to spend an action on Violent Unleash, it would be too late.
Of course they could have just made Violent Unleash a special action that happened after the unleash, not as part of it, but they didn't do that and maybe didn't consider it.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It depends on the stunned. If it is stunned [number], then it only comes into play at the start of a turn when actions are refreshed. If it is stunned for [duration], then I think it would apply immediately.
Note, by default, negative effects tick away their duration at the end of the turn of the affected target.
That is incorrect. Stunned with a number has both effects. As Stunned says "You cannot act while stunned", as soon as you gain the condition you're unable to act at all until the condition is removed. In the case of it having a number, at the start of your next turn when you lose that action.
Otherwise it's just a super awful version of Slowed because a lot of effects with it are Incapacitation and Slowed generally lasts longer.
"You cannot act while stunned" does not contain any mechanical information. Are you next going to claim that "You become senseless." means that you can no longer use any of your senses? While stunned, are you blind, deaf, cannot smell, taste, touch?
I suppose, when I read things in terms of mechanics I pay attention to the mechanical information, not the extraneous fluff. To each their own.
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stunned usually includes a value, which indicates how many total actions you lose, possibly over multiple turns, from being stunned.
If you're making someone lose 4 actions from Stunned 1, you're clearly contradicting how the condition works.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So even Stunned for X turns doesn't disrupt your turn. You finish this one and then lose your next X turns.
If I remember correctly from previous arguments about this:
The rule on page 622 saying that if you gain Quickened, Slowed, or Stunned during your turn that it doesn't change the number of actions that you have is not in conflict with the rules about Stunned preventing you from using actions.
So if you become Stunned 1 as part of the first action of your turn, you are correct that you still have 2 actions left for the round. Gaining the Stunned condition doesn't change that. But it does state that you "can't act" - which does still prevent you from using those two actions that you do still have.
It is completely and horribly broken and no one should run the game that way. But that is what the rules literally say.
Slowed is strictly superior if you don't treat Stunned as something crippling
Since Stunned overrides Slowed, if Slowed is the worse of the conditions, then that would indeed be a problem. Stunned should be the more detrimental condition because of the override.
I'm seeing three possible rulings when you get 'Stunned 1' during your turn. (whether you think they are RAW or not doesn't exclude them from the list - people have promoted them as a potential ruling to run the game with)
* Lose the rest of your turn and 1 action from your next turn.
* Continue the rest of your turn as normal and lose 1 action from your next turn.
* Lose 1 action from your current turn.
'Slowed 1 for 1 round' only has one ruling that I have ever seen promoted.
* Continue the rest of your turn as normal and lose 1 action from your next turn.
So the second ruling option from Stunned 1 pretty much matches Slowed 1 exactly. So that doesn't really seem right.
The first ruling option seems really harsh though. But the third doesn't seem harsh enough.
|
|
It depends on the stunned. If it is stunned [number], then it only comes into play at the start of a turn when actions are refreshed. If it is stunned for [duration], then I think it would apply immediately.
Note, by default, negative effects tick away their duration at the end of the turn of the affected target.
That is incorrect. Stunned with a number has both effects. As Stunned says "You cannot act while stunned", as soon as you gain the condition you're unable to act at all until the condition is removed. In the case of it having a number, at the start of your next turn when you lose that action.
Otherwise it's just a super awful version of Slowed because a lot of effects with it are Incapacitation and Slowed generally lasts longer.
"You cannot act while stunned" does not contain any mechanical information. Are you next going to claim that "You become senseless." means that you can no longer use any of your senses? While stunned, are you blind, deaf, cannot smell, taste, touch?
I suppose, when I read things in terms of mechanics I pay attention to the mechanical information, not the extraneous fluff. To each their own.
It does actually. In the section of the book about actions and acting.
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.Some effects might prevent you from acting. If you can’t act, you can’t use any actions, including reactions and free actions.
Fair enough. I was wrong.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think so.
The argument has been done a few times. Try this thread.
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stunned 1 causing you to lose more than 1 action by not being allowed to actually use them seems too bad to be true.
I think this is indeed somewhat broken rules because on the one hand, if you're stunned for multiple rounds, I think you're not supposed to be using reactions either. But stunned costing far more actions than its number value based on getting it in the middle of your turn instead of at the beginning also doesn't seem right.
I think the "You cannot act while stunned" is intended more as flavor text that is then given an actual mechanical implementation by saying you lose some actions (so you can't act all that much).
One way to fix it would be to decide that action loss from stun happens immediately, if you have any actions left to lose. So if you get stunned 1 in the middle of your turn, you lose one of your remaining actions. Also, until the stunned has been "paid off" by losing enough regular actions, you can't use reactions and free actions.
That would achieve making it more severe than slowed and achieve the "can't act" effect, without it doing far more than its numerical value would suggest.
It still makes Stunning Fist an interesting way to deny mooks their AoOs.
Readying a Flurry of Blows remains a good way to greet an incoming enemy (rather than parking next to them). And if you can Stun them too, that'll ruin many monster combos, like w/ Knockdown, Grab, etc. since they'd run out of actions. Heck, they might lose their Strike if they've spent two actions, maybe spending one they wouldn't have if they'd know they'd only have two (as they would know w/ Slow).
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stunned 1 causing you to lose more than 1 action by not being allowed to actually use them seems too bad to be true.
I think this is indeed somewhat broken rules because on the one hand, if you're stunned for multiple rounds, I think you're not supposed to be using reactions either. But stunned costing far more actions than its number value based on getting it in the middle of your turn instead of at the beginning also doesn't seem right.
I think the "You cannot act while stunned" is intended more as flavor text that is then given an actual mechanical implementation by saying you lose some actions (so you can't act all that much).
One way to fix it would be to decide that action loss from stun happens immediately, if you have any actions left to lose. So if you get stunned 1 in the middle of your turn, you lose one of your remaining actions. Also, until the stunned has been "paid off" by losing enough regular actions, you can't use reactions and free actions.
That would achieve making it more severe than slowed and achieve the "can't act" effect, without it doing far more than its numerical value would suggest.
It still makes Stunning Fist an interesting way to deny mooks their AoOs.
Well if Stun 1 makes them lose all their actions. It means a Monk can ready an action for the start of an enemies turn, then potentially stun them wasting their entire turn effectively becoming a Stun 3. Its pretty broken if you read it like that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well if Stun 1 makes them lose all their actions. It means a Monk can ready an action for the start of an enemies turn, then potentially stun them wasting their entire turn effectively becoming a Stun 3. Its pretty broken if you read it like that.
You can't ready an action and specify a trigger that is only based on game mechanics such as 'the enemy starts their turn'.
But it is still really powerful to only let an enemy get one action before the monk stuns them again. You just have to guess right to make the trigger match what they actually do.
Well if Stun 1 makes them lose all their actions. It means a Monk can ready an action for the start of an enemies turn, then potentially stun them wasting their entire turn effectively becoming a Stun 3. Its pretty broken if you read it like that.You can't ready an action and specify a trigger that is only based on game mechanics such as 'the enemy starts their turn'.
But it is still really powerful to only let an enemy get one action before the monk stuns them again. You just have to guess right to make the trigger match what they actually do.
You can specify to ready an action for when they start to move, interact, speak or do anything. Which is essentially the start of their turn. Yes perhaps they could take a mental only action and you wouldn't then react to that as you wouldn't know it was happening.
You can specify to ready an action for when they start to move, interact, speak or do anything. Which is essentially the start of their turn. Yes perhaps they could take a mental only action and you wouldn't then react to that as you wouldn't know it was happening.
Ready also doesn't disrupt their action. So they do get to complete that first action that the monk reacted to.
Also if you ready an action to Flurry triggered by them moving and they instead attack you, that is a different action and doesn't meet the trigger. Or if you ready a Flurry triggered by them Striking with their weapon and they instead trip you, that also doesn't trigger.
Ready also doesn't disrupt their action. So they do get to complete that first action that the monk reacted to.
So how would you run a readied action to trip someone triggered by a Stride? Would you wait to apply the effects of the trip until they'd completed their Stride action or would you apply it immediately and interrupt their Stride?
Well, the trigger would be as broad as possible, and there are reasonable broad triggers.
Player: I say "Freeze or I'll smack you!" My PC readies an action to flurry an enemy if they do anything other than freeze.
---
I think a reliable litmus test is to ask yourself how the players (or yourself if a player) would react if the tactic were used against them.
Personally, it'd be a major strike against a GM if they pulled this crap on me. Stunned 1 acting like Stunned "anything more than 1" doesn't jibe, and it seem the rules were meant for standard instances, not overlapping actions/turns/Reactions. As usual, PF2 asks for GMs to make reasonable interpretations in odd circumstances, not be a stickler to the rules to where absurd imbalances slip through.
Ready also doesn't disrupt their action. So they do get to complete that first action that the monk reacted to.So how would you run a readied action to trip someone triggered by a Stride? Would you wait to apply the effects of the trip until they'd completed their Stride action or would you apply it immediately and interrupt their Stride?
I use the Attack of Opportunity trigger as precedent and let each 5-foot square moved be reacted to.
So if I ready an action to trip triggered by them moving out of their current space, then if they Stride 20 feet as their action - the reaction would trigger and if the trip is successful they move the first 5 feet (since Ready doesn't disrupt) and then the target falls prone.
For game mechanics anyway.
In gameplay I might describe the results as though the trip took place immediately and the target stumbled, or fell and rolled.
|
|
I am glad that I an now aware of how it is written. I will certainly not be running it that way.
I think the best way to run it wherein stunned 1 makes you lose 1 action (as seemingly intended) is to not wait for the start of the turn. I'd shift it to stunned [number] means you lose your next [number] actions. If it is during your turn, it affects the action(s) you have left. Rollover into next turn if the [number] is greater than the number of actions you have left. Also, if you have the stunned value in between turns, you still do lose the ability to use in between turn actions.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the "You cannot act while stunned" is intended more as flavor text that is then given an actual mechanical implementation by saying you lose some actions (so you can't act all that much).It's written the exact same way as Paralyzed and Petrified and there's sections on what happens if you can't use actions. It's clearly rules text.
It's supposed to be debilitating, that's why it's generally been paired with the Incapacitation trait. Once you've been Stunned you can do literally nothing until the condition goes away.
I still maintain we need to read that with a bit of nuance. Because:
The last step of starting your turn is always the same.
• Regain your 3 actions and 1 reaction. If you haven’t
spent your reaction from your last turn, you lose
it—you can’t “save” actions or reactions from one
turn to use during the next turn. If a condition
prevents you from being able to act, you don’t
regain any actions or your reaction. Some abilities
or conditions (such as quickened and slowed) can
change how many actions you regain and whether
you regain your reaction. If you lose actions and gain
additional actions (such as if you’re both quickened
and slowed), you choose which actions to lose.
So if you have a condition that says you can't act, you would skip the whole moment when you regain actions.
Stunned
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.
If that "you can't act" is read as super-literal as all that, then you would never regain actions, and because you never regain actions, you would never ever lose the stunned condition.
That's clearly not how it's supposed to go. There's some kind of discrepancy happening between these rules that are almost 150 pages apart. So there has to be some kind of nuance or common sense to how exactly the "you can't act while stunned" is meant to interpreted. If you try to execute it like a computer, you run into a bug that halts the program.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you try to execute it like a computer, you run into a bug that halts the program.
Hah, indeed. Deadlock. Circular resource dependency.
Regaining actions is blocked by "can't act" caused by Stunned 1.
Lowering Stunned 1 is blocked by lack of gaining actions.
And even if you have actions remaining from your previous turn, you still lose them before you can use them to reduce Stunned 1.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...I think the "You cannot act while stunned" is intended more as flavor text that is then given an actual mechanical implementation by saying you lose some actions (so you can't act all that much).It's written the exact same way as Paralyzed and Petrified and there's sections on what happens if you can't use actions. It's clearly rules text.
It's supposed to be debilitating, that's why it's generally been paired with the Incapacitation trait. Once you've been Stunned you can do literally nothing until the condition goes away.
I still maintain we need to read that with a bit of nuance. Because:
The last step of starting your turn is always the same.
• Regain your 3 actions and 1 reaction. If you haven’t
spent your reaction from your last turn, you lose
it—you can’t “save” actions or reactions from one
turn to use during the next turn. If a condition
prevents you from being able to act, you don’t
regain any actions or your reaction. Some abilities
or conditions (such as quickened and slowed) can
change how many actions you regain and whether
you regain your reaction. If you lose actions and gain
additional actions (such as if you’re both quickened
and slowed), you choose which actions to lose.
So if you have a condition that says you can't act, you would skip the whole moment when you regain actions.
If that "you can't act" is read as super-literal as all that, then you would never regain actions, and because you never regain actions, you would neverStunned
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.
Yes but you can't just ignore the You can't act while stunned at the same time.
Logically its a clear contradition. Yes we do get how it is supposed to play, but thats only because we are trying to make sense of it. Its really really badly written.
Given how rare Stun happens and how short it lasts (the vast majority of instances are of Stunned 1), makes me think that it does indeed makes your character unable to act at all (including being completely senseless). You were, after all, stunned by the effect even if for a short period of time.
Otherwise, Stunned would be a harder to apply, shorter span Slow that, on top of it all, is tied to Incapacitation effects.
In short, if you stun someone mid turn, they lose their remaining actions, regardless of how many there are. On their next turn they recover themselves and can't function. Otherwise, Stun has no reason to exist in the game at all and it certainly doesn't need to have a lot more restrictions and balancing factors as the Slowed condition.
If you run Stunned in any other way at your table, you might as well remove the condition entirely.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Given how rare Stun happens and how short it lasts (the vast majority of instances are of Stunned 1), makes me think that it does indeed makes your character unable to act at all (including being completely senseless). You were, after all, stunned by the effect even if for a short period of time.
Otherwise, Stunned would be a harder to apply, shorter span Slow that, on top of it all, is tied to Incapacitation effects.
In short, if you stun someone mid turn, they lose their remaining actions, regardless of how many there are. On their next turn they recover themselves and can't function. Otherwise, Stun has no reason to exist in the game at all and it certainly doesn't need to have a lot more restrictions and balancing factors as the Slowed condition.
If you run Stunned in any other way at your table, you might as well remove the condition entirely.
I agree completely. Stuns are supposed to be extremely severe and not just be a weird, harder to apply, less useful, and handicapped version of Slowed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Given how rare Stun happens and how short it lasts (the vast majority of instances are of Stunned 1), makes me think that it does indeed makes your character unable to act at all (including being completely senseless). You were, after all, stunned by the effect even if for a short period of time.
Otherwise, Stunned would be a harder to apply, shorter span Slow that, on top of it all, is tied to Incapacitation effects.
In short, if you stun someone mid turn, they lose their remaining actions, regardless of how many there are. On their next turn they recover themselves and can't function. Otherwise, Stun has no reason to exist in the game at all and it certainly doesn't need to have a lot more restrictions and balancing factors as the Slowed condition.
If you run Stunned in any other way at your table, you might as well remove the condition entirely.
I can see this. But I can't see the author of the feat in question thinking it worked that way and you trade four actions and your reaction (and one round of bonus Psyche damage) in return for a 1/4 fireball damage centered around yourself.
From a balance perpective this feat is clearly supposed to cost you a single action. The only question is whether it's from turn 1 or turn 2 of your psyche.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Given how rare Stun happens and how short it lasts (the vast majority of instances are of Stunned 1), makes me think that it does indeed makes your character unable to act at all (including being completely senseless). You were, after all, stunned by the effect even if for a short period of time.
Otherwise, Stunned would be a harder to apply, shorter span Slow that, on top of it all, is tied to Incapacitation effects.
In short, if you stun someone mid turn, they lose their remaining actions, regardless of how many there are. On their next turn they recover themselves and can't function. Otherwise, Stun has no reason to exist in the game at all and it certainly doesn't need to have a lot more restrictions and balancing factors as the Slowed condition.
If you run Stunned in any other way at your table, you might as well remove the condition entirely.
No I disagree with your value judgement. Stunned 1 is supposed to cost one action. The vast majority of times that is going to occur outside your turn and just cost one action.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
No I disagree with your value judgement. Stunned 1 is supposed to cost one action. The vast majority of times that is going to occur outside your turn and just cost one action.Given how rare Stun happens and how short it lasts (the vast majority of instances are of Stunned 1), makes me think that it does indeed makes your character unable to act at all (including being completely senseless). You were, after all, stunned by the effect even if for a short period of time.
Otherwise, Stunned would be a harder to apply, shorter span Slow that, on top of it all, is tied to Incapacitation effects.
In short, if you stun someone mid turn, they lose their remaining actions, regardless of how many there are. On their next turn they recover themselves and can't function. Otherwise, Stun has no reason to exist in the game at all and it certainly doesn't need to have a lot more restrictions and balancing factors as the Slowed condition.
If you run Stunned in any other way at your table, you might as well remove the condition entirely.
It also costs everything until you pay that one action at the start of your next turn.
And to be clear, you don't actually lose your actions. If there is a way for someone to get rid of Stunned on your turn after you've been Stunned, you still get to use your remaining actions.
No I disagree with your interpretation of it.
Strictly speaking Stunned 1 is permanent because the rules for Stunning don't overwrite the general rules properly. Technically Each time you regain actions never occurs because If a condition prevents you from being able to act, you don’t regain any actions or your reaction, and You can’t act while stunned. That would be an insane way to play. Stunned 1 being permanent coma. I don't recommend it. But that is what I think the rules say.
The designers got themselves into a knot here between not being able to use actions, and not regaining actions - you only need one to apply not both. But we see overlapping rules for both.
Likewise I see your interpretation potentially losing 3+ actions and all your reactions as being too strong.
I would just deduct your stunned actions from your actions remaining and move on straight away even though its not possible by the turn sequence.
If you still owe stunned actions then I'll have the effect carry on to your next turn
Stunned for a duration is different that Stunned for X actions. Its the stronger form. If you get Stunned for a duration then you would be losing everything.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some of this has been brought up already, but I'm putting all the rules text together to see if it at all makes sense if you run Stunned with a value as causing you to be unable to act.
Slowed says: "You have fewer actions. Slowed always includes a value. When you regain your actions at the start of your turn, reduce the number of actions you regain by your slowed value. Because slowed has its effect at the start of your turn, you don't immediately lose actions if you become slowed during your turn."
Stunned says:"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."
It also says this about Stunned with a duration: "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."
Why would it need to say this if it was assumed that any form of Stunned would cause you to be entirely unable to act in any way while you have the condition?
CRB says: "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."
Can't act: "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."
Putting this information together you can see that the rules are contradictory; if Stunned with a value actually means you cannot act then it will never end as you never regain actions to reduce it. The writer of the CRB also seems to assume that gaining Stunned on your turn would not restrict you from acting on that turn. This is just incoherent with the language of Stunned if "You can't act while stunned" is taken literally.
A more forgiving reading of the rules is that the Stunned condition first states you cannot act and then the rest of the condition clarifies exactly how you cannot act. For Stunned with a duration you cannot act period, for Stunned with a value you cannot act for the next X actions, but can both before and after those actions. It may also be true that Paizo wants Stunned to deny reactions between turns if rumours of that Youtube ruling are true (still haven't seen the video), if so this interpretation is also contradictory.
The RAW is nonsense for both interpretations, but I really cannot fathom that the RAI is that gaining stunned 1 during your turn is supposed to end it given the problems it causes and the way the writer of the CRB seems to think it works.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The RAW is nonsense for both interpretations, but I really cannot fathom that the RAI is that gaining stunned 1 during your turn is supposed to end it given the problems it causes and the way the writer of the CRB seems to think it works.
Regardless of the finicky situation between the loop of "You Can't Act" and you not being able to gain actions because of it, I think Stunned is supposed to work like I'm saying. If it's not, then it's a useless condition because it works just like Slowed. Except it's worse in every single way existent in the game. It's basically a waste of space.
People are also blowing way out of proportion the situation of someone being stunned mid turn. It's most likely rare, it's gated behind several conditions (critical hits, both attacks landing, Incapacitation, etc) and it also features a heavy cost (Two actions plus a reaction, at least).
Looking at the sole effect it may seem out of line, but when you factor in the action costs and circumstances aligning, it actually seems reasonable.
As for the Violent Unleash at hand, it's obvious the cost is just 1 action and done. I mean, come on, even if the wording isn't perfect and left dubious holes in its mechanics, applying some reasonable thinking would quickly sidestep situation.
Which is more likely an ability that costs one action (and is balanced as such) despite its obtuse implementation or something that is balanced as a one-action activity but because of some corner case of the rules the player loses their turn? One answer is the correct one and the other warrants a slap on the face.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Given how rare Stun happens and how short it lasts (the vast majority of instances are of Stunned 1), makes me think that it does indeed makes your character unable to act at all (including being completely senseless). You were, after all, stunned by the effect even if for a short period of time.
Otherwise, Stunned would be a harder to apply, shorter span Slow that, on top of it all, is tied to Incapacitation effects.
In short, if you stun someone mid turn, they lose their remaining actions, regardless of how many there are. On their next turn they recover themselves and can't function. Otherwise, Stun has no reason to exist in the game at all and it certainly doesn't need to have a lot more restrictions and balancing factors as the Slowed condition.
If you run Stunned in any other way at your table, you might as well remove the condition entirely.
I can see this. But I can't see the author of the feat in question thinking it worked that way and you trade four actions and your reaction (and one round of bonus Psyche damage) in return for a 1/4 fireball damage centered around yourself.
From a balance perpective this feat is clearly supposed to cost you a single action. The only question is whether it's from turn 1 or turn 2 of your psyche.
It wasn't written in secret and snuck into the book at the last second. They presumably playtested and discussed everything as a team before release, not to mention it was under the direction of Seifter, who is meticulous, so we have to assume they knew what they created.
Slow has text stating that if you gain it during your turn you don't lose actions until your next turn. If stunned was supposed to behave the same way they would have said so, especially in the recent errata.
I don’t assume they understand how stunned works when playtesting.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The RAW is nonsense for both interpretations
Totally agree.