| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am getting upset with the remastered stun rules. It is all in one handy page 446 of the remastered rules.
The box in the top left in the second paragraph says
Other conditions say you can't act... Unlike slowed and stunned...
In the colum right next to it is the condition Stunned. It says
Stunned. You've become senseless. You can't act.
Please Paizo stop writing directly contradictory statements.
Please remember that Stuned has two different implementations. Stunned with a number of actions lost, and Stunned with a time duration.
Note that this is different to the problems cleared up in the errata with the 4th printing of the CRB
Page 460, 462, and 469: The text on Gaining and Losing actions on page 462 and for the last step of starting your turn on page 469 indicated that if you had a condition that said “you can’t act,” you wouldn’t regain any actions on your turn, rather than merely being unable to use them. This conflicted with the sidebar on page 622, which was correct. Conditions and other effects that cause you to change the number of actions you regain (such as quickened, slowed, or stunned) say so.
Stunned causes you to lose a variable number of actions. Depending on the number you may or may not be able to act in the round.
That is not what PC2 says.
You can’t act. 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, reduce the number you regain
by your stunned value, then reduce your stunned value by
the number of actions you lost.
If you have the stunned condition of any value, then you can't act. And you only have the option of reducing the value at the start of your next turn. So gaining the Stunned 1 condition as a reaction to your first action of your turn means that you Can't Act and are unable to use the other two actions of your current turn (which you do still have), are unable to use your reaction between your current turn and your next turn, then also lose one action at the start of your next turn in order to remove the stunned condition.
I will agree that with the full text of the sidebar, that there is no contradiction.
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.
The "Unlike slowed or stunned" sentence is talking about conditions that simply have Can't Act rather than Stunned with a value which also includes changing the number of actions that you regain - in addition to applying Can't Act.
If you have the stunned condition of any value, then you can't act. And you only have the option of reducing the value at the start of your next turn.That's not how I would read it. The "total" in "how many total actions you lose" means total. The count starts immediately. The first sentence is just a qualitative short summary of what stunned does in a vernacular sense; it is a lead-in sentence to the rest of the paragraph. So to take your example, you take an action, get hit with a reaction during your turn, and gain stunned 2. The 2 means 2. It doesn't mean your remaining 2 this round and then 2 more next round.
That is a very common houserule. One that I recommend using.
But it is a houserule.
Stunned is very clear that the only way that Stunned 2 reduces its value is that at the start of your next turn you don't regain two of your actions. And that for the entire duration of having Stunned you are unable to use the actions that you do have.
As for the wording of 'total' even that is clear. You do only lose two actions in total - the two that you don't gain at the start of your next turn. You actually do still have the two actions remaining from your current turn. You haven't lost those ones. You just are unable to use them until you remove the Stunned condition.
You've trimmed the text to make it seem far less clear than it is and invent a contradiction that does not exist.
That is just false. Read the whole paragraph in the box. The object is clearly linked throughout. Yes the writer is making a different point which I removed. I shorted it to show the direct contradiction the writer used.
The issue the errata is fixing is
Not the same issue, just related. I mentioned it to bring context.
The "Unlike slowed or stunned" sentence is talking about conditions that simply have Can't Act rather than Stunned with a value which also includes changing the number of actions that you regain - in addition to applying Can't Act.
Ok you have just repeated the contradition right here in your own words.
Unlike ... stunned
then
rather than Stunned with a value
You can't do this and be clear. It is deeply confusing to use the same term to mean different things. Both the terms unlike and rather than define differences.
But at least you put a qualifier on the second term.
Why does it matter? It is the whole what happens when you get stunned in you own turn. Example a Monk reacts to your first action by using a prepared flurry of blows, and the Stunning Fist (level 2 Monk feat) comes into effect causing Stunned 1.
I still can't tell RAW wise what happens. Do I lose all the rest of my turn and one action in my next turn, as well as my reaction? That is what the rules seem to say. But that is really TBTBT.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stunned is very clear that[...]
Stunned is also very clear that the value represents action loss. Forcing a character to lose 4 actions if they're Stunned 1 is blatantly in houserule territory too.
Hence why people call it a contradiction, because both of the logical ways to read how Stunned is meant to work contradict some aspect of the written text of the ability.
Big shame they didn't opt to fix this in the Remaster.
Well, the entire second paragraph of Gaining and Losing Actions is going into the details of the mechanical difference between losing an action and having actions that you can't use.
So no, Stunned 1 on your turn doesn't cause you to lose the remaining actions of your current turn. It just makes it so that you can't use them for anything. You only lose one action total at the start of your next turn.
You don't lose 4 actions, you lose one action and can't use the other three. That is very much different... somehow.
It may indeed be too bad to play that way, but the rules are in no way ambiguous.
@Gortle, If I remove the example of Stunned from that second paragraph would that remove any seeming contradiction and make it more clear?
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,
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.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well stunned comes in two flavors.
Stunned with a value
Stunned with a duration.
If your icecream cone is the kind with a value you only lose that many actions for that instance of stunned. You cant act until you've given up the number of actions the value is taking from you.
If youve got the duration flavor in your icecream cone then you cant act for the entire duration.
This seems to be the reason for the particular working of you cant act. Its just with a value you cant act until that value is used up.
Well stunned comes in two flavors.
Stunned with a value
Stunned with a duration.If your icecream cone is the kind with a value you only lose that many actions for that instance of stunned. You cant act until you've given up the number of actions the value is taking from you.
If youve got the duration flavor in your icecream cone then you cant act for the entire duration.
This seems to be the reason for the particular working of you cant act. Its just with a value you cant act until that value is used up.
Yeah. And what people (including me) want to be able to do is to give up an action that you have mid-turn to pay down the value of Stunned with a value.
But the Stunned condition does not actually give that as an option. You can't act until you pay down the condition, but you can't pay down the condition until the start of your next turn. So you end up with actions on your current turn that you can't act to use, but also can't be used to pay down the Stunned condition. And that feels bad.
That is very much different... somehow.
It may indeed be too bad to play that way
Agreed
but the rules are in no way ambiguous.
Disagreed.
@Gortle, If I remove the example of Stunned from that second paragraph would that remove any seeming contradiction and make it more clear?
Other conditions
simply say you can’t act. When you can’t act, you’re
unable to take any actions at all. Unlike slowed,
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.
Yes it removes the contradition but confirms the understanding of the rules that you just said was TBTBT.
The better option is to remove the phrase You can't act from the Stunned condition. The contradition goes away then. Though this does mean while you are affected by Stunned 1 you can still use reactions, but while you are affected by Stunned one round you can't use reactions. Because the Stunned with a duration text has an extra explanatory clause that reapplies you can't act. That is a specific case overriding a general case and is not a contradition.
I mean Gortle is absolutely right here.
The sidebar is garbage, ignor it and use the conditions actual entry to define what you do when you have it.
If we've learned anything from the death and dying debate its that side bars and rules not in the conditions entry are prone to mistakes.
Yes it removes the contradition but confirms the understanding of the rules that you just said was TBTBT.@Gortle, If I remove the example of Stunned from that second paragraph would that remove any seeming contradiction and make it more clear?
Other conditions
simply say you can’t act. When you can’t act, you’re
unable to take any actions at all. Unlike slowed,
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.
Well, if the example is the only thing causing a contradiction, then it isn't the rules that are in contradiction, it is that the examples given are incongruent with the rules. The rules are clear. The example needs fixed.
The better option is to remove the phrase You can't act from the Stunned condition. The contradition goes away then. Though this does mean while you are affected by Stunned 1 you can still use reactions, but while you are affected by Stunned one round you can't use reactions. Because the Stunned with a duration text has an extra explanatory clause that reapplies you can't act.
I would agree with that. But unless this is changed in errata, then doing this is a houserule.
I mean Gortle is absolutely right here.
The sidebar is garbage, ignor it and use the conditions actual entry to define what you do when you have it.If we've learned anything from the death and dying debate its that side bars and rules not in the conditions entry are prone to mistakes.
That wouldn't actually fix anything.
Removing the sidebar would mean that the second sentence of the Stunned condition, "You can't act." is undefined. Which wouldn't be very good.
If we only keep the meaning of Can't Act, then the Stunned condition's rule all by itself causes this same thing that we are discussing. The Stunned condition says when and how to reduce the value of Stunned with a value. At the start of your turn you don't gain a number of actions and for each action not gained, you reduce the value of Stunned by that number. There is no option for paying an action that you already have to reduce the value.
Well stunned comes in two flavors.
Stunned with a value
Stunned with a duration.If your icecream cone is the kind with a value you only lose that many actions for that instance of stunned. You cant act until you've given up the number of actions the value is taking from you.
If youve got the duration flavor in your icecream cone then you cant act for the entire duration.
This seems to be the reason for the particular working of you cant act. Its just with a value you cant act until that value is used up.
Yeah. And what people (including me) want to be able to do is to give up an action that you have mid-turn to pay down the value of Stunned with a value.
But the Stunned condition does not actually give that as an option. You can't act until you pay down the condition, but you can't pay down the condition until the start of your next turn. So you end up with actions on your current turn that you can't act to use, but also can't be used to pay down the Stunned condition. And that feels bad.
i didn't consider that part in attempting to explain it, but yeah you cant use actions until the condition is removed because until its gone you are senseless and you cant act. But its not too common to get stunned on your active turn just really punishing if it happens.
I mean Gortle is absolutely right here.
The sidebar is garbage, ignor it and use the conditions actual entry to define what you do when you have it.If we've learned anything from the death and dying debate its that side bars and rules not in the conditions entry are prone to mistakes.
That wouldn't actually fix anything.
Removing the sidebar would mean that the second sentence of the Stunned condition, "You can't act." is undefined. Which wouldn't be very good.
If we only keep the meaning of Can't Act, then the Stunned rule all by itself causes this same thing that we are discussing. The Stunned condition says when and how to reduce the value of Stunned with a value. At the start of your turn you don't gain a number of actions and for each action not gained, you reduce the value of Stunned by that number. There is no option for paying an action that you already have to reduce the value.
i think that's self explanatory. Why should we need you can't act to have an entry that says you can't take actions? Its a bit overkill.
IF you walk into a trap with your first stride and the effect of the trap is a duration based stun effect and you end up getting it, well, you still have two actions and you still can't use them. If it was a value based stun effect there would be no difference for that turn between the two.
That is just false. Read the whole paragraph in the box.It isn't, and I did.
I've read the whole of both paragraphs in the box and there is no contradiction with what they say either internally within the box or externally with other text in the book.
Specifically the text is talking about how "Other conditions" which say "can't act" are "unlike" slowed and stunned in that they "don't change the number of actions you regain; they just prevent you from using them."
There is no contradiction in that.
Yes it is there. You are applying a partial qualification to get around that Stunned says you can act and also denies that that it did.
The simple contradiction is right there. It is terrible writing.
Stunned says you can act and also denies that that it did.
While there are still many problems with Stunned, contradicting itself isn't one of them.
You are reading too much into the second paragraph of Gaining and Losing Actions.
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.
This is not saying that Stunned does allow you to act. It is saying that the Can't Act status does not (by itself) change the number of actions that you gain at the start of your turn.
Which is absolutely correct. And does not contradict Stunned. Because Stunned does not "simply say you can't act". It says you can't act and separately changes how many actions you regain at the start of your turn (in the case of Stunned with a value).
Other conditions will, unlike Slowed or Stunned, simply say that you Can't Act. Those conditions won't change how many actions you regain.
the odd thing about the part that comes at the end saying
That means if you are somehow cured of paralysis on your turn you can act immediately.
Whats odd about this reference is that stunned is actually a condition that if you do have actions left on your turn and again somehow it is cured you can act immediately as well while its still your turn. So as much as the reference is unlike slow its not unlike stunned.
Stunned does not "simply say you can't act". It says you can't act and separately changes how many actions you regain at the start of your turn (in the case of Stunned with a value).
OK well for starters Stunned does simply say "You can't act". Then it goes on.
You trying to make the point that it says "You can't act" in a complex way with qualifications so it is not simple it is a qualified "You can't act".
Yeah. I saw that before I wrote my first post. It is a really terrible way of expression and worth objecting to. Just as it is.
Secondly the text is broken into sentences that split this up.
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 ...
The middle phrase is a sentence which breaks from the first sentence. It losens the connection to the other conditions of the first sentence. It opens the door of meaning and allows all cases where it says "You can't act" not just "simply say you can’t act".
Stunned needed a clearer text stating if you can take reactions while stunned, which seems usually inappropriate. I still don't know why you aren't off guard while stunned.
Stunned does not "simply say you can't act". It says you can't act and separately changes how many actions you regain at the start of your turn (in the case of Stunned with a value).OK well for starters Stunned does simply say "You can't act". Then it goes on.
You trying to make the point that it says "You can't act" in a complex way with qualifications so it is not simple it is a qualified "You can't act".
Yeah. I saw that before I wrote my first post. It is a really terrible way of expression and worth objecting to. Just as it is.
Secondly the text is broken into sentences that split this up.
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 ...
The middle phrase is a sentence which breaks from the first sentence. It losens the connection to the other conditions of the first sentence. It opens the door of meaning and allows all cases where it says "You can't act" not just "simply say you can’t act".
That second paragraph of Gaining and Losing Actions is talking about the Can't Act state. Stunned has Can't Act, yes. It also has the effect of causing actions to actually be lost (Or rather, not gained at the start of your turn - which the rules consider equivalent. See the first paragraph of Gaining and Losing Actions for the proof of that).
So when the paragraph about Can't Act is talking about being unlike Slowed or Stunned, it is using those conditions as examples of conditions that cause you to lose actions. And Stunned does cause you to lose actions.
Can't Act doesn't cause you to lose actions.
The fact that Stunned has both Can't Act and causes you to lose actions is not a contradiction.
Using Stunned as an example of a condition that does cause you to lose actions is not inaccurate. Nor does doing so imply that Stunned doesn't also cause Can't Act.
It really feels like you are deliberately twisting the language to try and inject uncertainty and ambiguity into this that simply doesn't exist. Probably so that you can then claim that the Ambiguous Rules rule would apply and the houserule that we all want is actually RAW. It isn't.
Stunned needed a clearer text stating if you can take reactions while stunned, which seems usually inappropriate.
I'm not sure how much more clear it could possibly be.
You can't act.
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.
Where is there any wiggle room in this?
The fact that Stunned has both Can't Act and causes you to lose actions is not a contradiction.
That is not my objection.
It really feels like you are deliberately twisting the...
No it is a very plain reading of the words. There is a direct negation. You are making an unwarranted intuitive leap in your reading.
Stunned needed a clearer text stating if you can take reactions while stunned, which seems usually inappropriate.I'm not sure how much more clear it could possibly be.
a) It poorly talks about Stunned as if it is one condition when it is two.
b) It states Stunned says you can't act, then says stunned is unlike you can't act. Better writing here would have fixed things. It needs to cleaning distinguish the subject in its sentences.
c) Directly mentioning reactions and free actions would have been a plus. No it is not superfluous.
Stunned was not a good example to have been brought up in the sidebar to compare to conditions that say don't act but don't take away your actions(which they didn't even bother naming one), because as Gortle says stunned has two different rules about how it works and one of them takes your actions on a new turn and says you cant act (value), the other just says you cant act and doesn't do anything with your actions (duration). So stunned is not "unlike" anything because duration based stun is exactly a cant act condition that if cured during your turn you can go back to using your actions. AND even the Value stunned is the same if on your turn you both gain and then lose stunned leaving you with actions to take.
Not all versions of stunned take actions though so talking about stunned as if all versions of stunned take actions is misleading, and that's why its not good for that example.
Stunned with a duration "just"
I used quotes, caps looks like yelling.
That is a very common houserule. One that I recommend using.
But it is a houserule.
Stunned is very clear that the only way that Stunned 2 reduces its value is that at the start of your next turn you don't regain two of your actions. And that for the entire duration of having Stunned you are unable to use the actions that you do have.
As for the wording of 'total' even that is clear. You do only lose two actions in total - the two that you don't gain at the start of your next turn. You actually do still have the two actions remaining from your current turn. You haven't lost those ones. You just are unable to use them until you remove the Stunned condition.
I have to wonder why the text that you reduce your actions per round is there at all, if you simply are unable to act the entire round. As a newbie to 2E, I was reading the slowed and stunned conditions and wondering why they were so similar (which seemed to make stunned a bit redundant over slowed), so what you say makes a lot of sense (especially when comparing the stunned condition between 1E and 2E), but it's still strange to even include the "you lose actions according to your stunned value" bit when you can't act at all in the round.
Thank you for the succinct description, shroudb.
To be sure I get this right, if you are "stunned 2 for two rounds", this means that the first round, even if I reduce my actions by two actions in the first round, I can't act at all, because Stunned says "You've become senseless. You can't act while stunned.", but in the second round, after removing the two actions, I can act again? Is that right?
Not all versions of stunned take actions though so talking about stunned as if all versions of stunned take actions is misleading, and that's why its not good for that example.
Yes, it does.
Stunned might also have a
duration instead, such as “stunned for 1 minute,” causing
you to lose all your actions for the duration.
Stunned for 3 rounds would cause you to lose your actions for those three rounds. Even if you remove the condition mid-round of your turn on round 2 you would have no actions available to act with.
I'm not sure why people are considering Stunned for a duration and Stunned with a value to be separate conditions. The only difference is when the condition ends. Stunned with a value ends after you lose a certain number of actions. Stunned with a duration ends after a certain amount of time.
In both cases the Stunned condition causes both action loss and the Can't Act effect.
So to me it feels the same as considering Frightened 2 and Frightened 1 for three rounds to be two completely separate and unrelated meanings of Frightened. Which is just strange.
"stunned for two rounds" (or "stunned 6" I guess).
"Stunned for two rounds" is not the same as Stunned 6 because if you have haste you could be paying 4 actions per round and pay off Stunned 6 early. You would still have 2 actions left of round 2.
You are right Finoan. They do all take actions, my statement above was clearly wrong. But there is one distinction here.
Stun with a duration and with a value act differently. Only the duration version takes all your actions when you get it. The value version only takes actions away when you regain them.
This does mean in the scenario where you stride into a trap that gives you stunned 2, you don't lose your 2 actions you have left but still cannot use them that turn. If somehow you are cured of the stun condition during your same turn where you have 2 actions left you can act again and you have 2 actions to work with.
you stride into a trap that gives you stunned 2, you don't lose your 2 actions you have left but still cannot use them that turn. If somehow you are cured of the stun condition during your same turn where you have 2 actions left you can act again and you have 2 actions to work with.
You also don't lose your remaining actions when you walk into a trap that causes Stunned for 2 rounds. If you can somehow get the Stunned condition removed before the end of your turn, you can act again and use your remaining actions.
If that was the case with stunned for 2 rounds then what does it mean to lose all your actions for the duration as you mentioned?
Stunned might also have a
duration instead, such as “stunned for 1 minute,” causing
you to lose all your actions for the duration.
If that was the case with stunned for 2 rounds then what does it mean to lose all your actions for the duration as you mentioned?
At the start of each of your turns during that duration you would lose all of your actions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you that was a combination of a decent explanation and a decent amount of snark.
I was actually genuinely asking not telling. But I get it, many responses in these forums are very snarky and its easy to assume that was what anyone might be conveying.
"stunned 2 for two rounds"Shouldn't exist. It should be either "stunned 2" or "stunned for two rounds" (or "stunned 6" I guess).
Ah, so there are no cases of being stunned for X actions and stunned for X rounds together. That clears that up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, so there are no cases of being stunned for X actions and stunned for X rounds together. That clears that up."stunned 2 for two rounds"Shouldn't exist. It should be either "stunned 2" or "stunned for two rounds" (or "stunned 6" I guess).
It is possible to inflict both. From two different effects. That would be a GM call how they stack but I think that just the longer ne would apply. Similar to how you just take the worse of duplicate persistent damages. Maybe someone knows if there is a general rule on this.