Stunned: if "can't act" is a mistake, then what?


Rules Discussion

51 to 100 of 207 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I find it a little weird that "you can ready for when an foe acts" is too good to be true, but "stunned 1 deletes 4 actions instead of 1 if timed right" isn't. To me, this isn't a problem with ready, this is a problem with stunned having a particularly junky interaction with turn timing.


I'll concede that the more general Ready triggers are a bit dubious. But as we've already discussed, Ready is not the only way to get stunned on your own turn. There are snares that stun. Some monsters are stunned (with a value) while in sunlight. Some spells like Animus Mine have a side effect that stuns those who trigger it.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I am in support of a stunning trap actually shutting down the turn and cost actions on the next. That feels right for the concept of stun.
I do think that slow should be used instead of stun for a successful save though. If its a fail or crit fail im ok with stun being harsh.


SuperParkourio wrote:
Bluemagetim wrote:

I just tried to think of how readying would "look" if a player readies for the start of that NPCs turn.

Are they waiting a second or two for the npc start doing what exactly. my imaging of the situation broke down there.
The reason is because of what thenobledrake pointed out. Although the start of an NPCs turn is something that can trigger other reactions that look for it, it is not exactly a thing a player can really see. What a player can see is the NPC starting to move cause they decided to stride, or starting to attack because they decided to strike. If the NPC doesnt get to decide on something and begin to do it, how does a PC see that yes in fact that NPC started their turn.
That's what I was trying to say. It's not the "start of their turn" you'd be looking for. It's the telltale signs that they're taking actions. There are actions with no observable tells, but most important ones are impossible to do without visibly moving your body. Moving forward. Knocking an arrow. The hand movements during spellcasting.

For me it's more of the fact that someone can perform Free actions even outside their turn that kinda breaks up the generic "he starts to act" or "his fingers twitched".

As an example, what if the enemy takes a free action to speak a word or two, something that's explicitly allowed outside of your turn, doesn't he "twitches" and "moves an eyebrow" when he speaks?

For more specific triggers, like "he starts casting a spell", "he starts swinging", "he starts moving", it can work for sure, but those do come with a slight bit of risk on the part of the one readying the action.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

That's a fair point; there's really no in-universe difference between a creature doing such things on their turn or not. But I think stunned being 3 or 4 times more powerful specifically on the target's turn is too ridiculous to be true for the same reason.


Squiggit wrote:
But again, doesn't that concern apply to Stunned normally?

It doesn't, because that's not what the concern is.

The concern is the title thread: there really isn't much of another option to make Stunned maintain a relevant condition in the game without keeping its overpowered effects.

With no change is made to Stunned's current iteration, Stunned becomes an overpowered condition that probably shouldn't be in the game (because it becomes better than a valued condition like Slowed, but is weaker than a duration condition like Paralyzed). And if the only distinctive clause in the condition is removed, it becomes a redundant condition that likewise shouldn't be in the game (because we now have two conditions that do the same exact thing, as evidenced by them subsuming the same actions if both conditions are on a target).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's not possible to ready a stun action and use it on a creature's turn to eliminate the creature's ability to act before it has taken an action. There are no abilities that do that. It's not how triggers work.

Take Reactive Strike as an example:
Source Player Core pg. 138
"Requirements: A creature within your reach uses a manipulate action or a move action, makes a ranged attack, or leaves a square during a move action it's using."

Triggers take place after actions. Actions are what trigger triggers. As a GM, I don't think intention to take action is a suitable trigger. It's too gamey. There are triggers like the rogue's Nimble Dodge that let you apply an AC bonus before a strike hits, true, but they call that out as an exception.

Reactive Strike also calls out its exception to this:
"If your attack is a critical hit and the trigger was a manipulate action, you disrupt that action."

As far as Stun shutting down remaining actions on a creature's turn due to a readied action, I don't see a problem. In most cases it's so statistically unlikely to be successful, it's not going to happen enough to break the game.

I also don't think a wizard with an 8th level Power Word Stun is going to break the game by skipping their chance to cast a spell and moving within 30' of a creature to wait for it to attack them. It's going to work sometimes. It's going to get them badly hurt sometimes. It's also going to expend a super high level resource. It's never going to take away the target's entire turn.

Stun is an awesome effect to shoot for. It's going to elicit massive cheering if a player ever pulls it off. You might never see it in a campaign though. If someone wants to discuss a build that somehow delivers this easily and often enough to break the game, please put it up and let's see it.

Sovereign Court

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
But again, doesn't that concern apply to Stunned normally?

It doesn't, because that's not what the concern is.

The concern is the title thread: there really isn't much of another option to make Stunned maintain a relevant condition in the game without keeping its overpowered effects.

With no change is made to Stunned's current iteration, Stunned becomes an overpowered condition that probably shouldn't be in the game (because it becomes better than a valued condition like Slowed, but is weaker than a duration condition like Paralyzed). And if the only distinctive clause in the condition is removed, it becomes a redundant condition that likewise shouldn't be in the game (because we now have two conditions that do the same exact thing, as evidenced by them subsuming the same actions if both conditions are on a target).

I agree that stunned shouldn't be the same thing as slowed. But the solution has been named several times already: make people pay off stunned as soon as possible, instead of at the start of turn.

* You can still use it to deny reactions, just stun someone during your turn and then go move/cast spells.
* You largely remove the weird extra power spike of out of turn stunning.

Sovereign Court

In regards to triggers, there are triggers you could use that aren't such a stretch:

- someone moves within range of my Power Word Stun spell
- someone moves within reach of my flurry of blows/stunning fist
- someone starts casting


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:

In regards to triggers, there are triggers you could use that aren't such a stretch:

- someone moves within range of my Power Word Stun spell
- someone moves within reach of my flurry of blows/stunning fist
- someone starts casting

These are good examples of why Stun isn't a balance issue.

"- someone moves within range of my Power Word Stun spell" -> This is a valid trigger. A creature takes an action involving a movement into your range. However, this comes with a risk of the loss of your two readied actions. What if they attack you instead? Cast a spell on you? Breath weapon? Your opportunity cost is that you could have cast Slow on them and made them lose actions automatically before their turn began.

"- someone moves within reach of my flurry of blows/stunning fist" -> Same problem, plus what if they do something else, even if it's a single action to manipulate an object, do a ranged attack, etc? Then let's say you get the Stun when they move into your reach: You knocked off 1 action? And that's generous. The odds of stunning on FoB are low. They require 1 success on your part and 1 failure with the incapacitation trait on their side:
"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." If it's a mook, it's not a big deal that you stunned them. If it's a higher level creature, they basically need to roll a natural 1 to be stunned. Meanwhile, you used 2 actions to FoB which normally only takes 1, and you risked nobody moving into range and wasting those actions. Statistically, it's even worse in the mook case, because in the case where they critically fail, they become stunned 3. That means if you had just spent your actions normally, they would have completely lost their turn anyway, and you would have had more actions.

"- someone starts casting" -> Disagree. Starting to cast is not an action. Neither is "start to swing." "Cast a spell" is. That means their spell should go off before yours. That means if their first 2 actions were to cast, your stun is only going to limit 1 action, and that's exactly what it would have done if you had just stunned on your turn and not wasted the extra action plus reaction readying.

This stun topic comes up frequently, but it's so white room. Yes, at first glance, stunning someone on their turn seems powerful. The reality is it's much messier and harder, and it's a better tactic to just act on your turn and pursue other strategies. The statistics don't support the Stun is OP argument.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The reason it doesn't happen is most people see it as broken and stop it.
Which really should tell you enough.


Gortle wrote:

The reason it doesn't happen is most people see it as broken and stop it.

Which really should tell you enough.

Can you share the build and scenario that's causing this?


Ascalaphus wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
But again, doesn't that concern apply to Stunned normally?

It doesn't, because that's not what the concern is.

The concern is the title thread: there really isn't much of another option to make Stunned maintain a relevant condition in the game without keeping its overpowered effects.

With no change is made to Stunned's current iteration, Stunned becomes an overpowered condition that probably shouldn't be in the game (because it becomes better than a valued condition like Slowed, but is weaker than a duration condition like Paralyzed). And if the only distinctive clause in the condition is removed, it becomes a redundant condition that likewise shouldn't be in the game (because we now have two conditions that do the same exact thing, as evidenced by them subsuming the same actions if both conditions are on a target).

I agree that stunned shouldn't be the same thing as slowed. But the solution has been named several times already: make people pay off stunned as soon as possible, instead of at the start of turn.

* You can still use it to deny reactions, just stun someone during your turn and then go move/cast spells.
* You largely remove the weird extra power spike of out of turn stunning.

And introduce a weird big power drop on those out of turn stun effects instead.

There simple isn't a solution that keeps stun in an equal power level across out/in turn application.

The RAW has it that it's much stronger out of turn, but removing that one sentence instantly switches it to much weaker out of turn.


There's no general rule that defines whether reactions occur before or after their triggers. However, Player Core added this sentence:

Limitations on Triggers wrote:
If multiple actions would be occurring at the same time, and it's unclear in what order they happen, the GM determines the order based on the narrative.

Based on the section it's found in, some would argue that this sentence is referring only to multiple reactions in response to the same trigger, but I do think it can also be applied to the triggering action itself. And a GM would probably side against stun abuse when making this decision. RAW on-turn stun still shouldn't be possible even by means other than Ready, though. It's too powerful.


Remember, effects that only inflict stunned 1 usually do so on a successful save. If it happens on a failure or critical failure, it's usually in combination with other effects like damage. It's not supposed to be a showstopper.


Ascalaphus wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
But again, doesn't that concern apply to Stunned normally?

It doesn't, because that's not what the concern is.

The concern is the title thread: there really isn't much of another option to make Stunned maintain a relevant condition in the game without keeping its overpowered effects.

With no change is made to Stunned's current iteration, Stunned becomes an overpowered condition that probably shouldn't be in the game (because it becomes better than a valued condition like Slowed, but is weaker than a duration condition like Paralyzed). And if the only distinctive clause in the condition is removed, it becomes a redundant condition that likewise shouldn't be in the game (because we now have two conditions that do the same exact thing, as evidenced by them subsuming the same actions if both conditions are on a target).

I agree that stunned shouldn't be the same thing as slowed. But the solution has been named several times already: make people pay off stunned as soon as possible, instead of at the start of turn.

* You can still use it to deny reactions, just stun someone during your turn and then go move/cast spells.
* You largely remove the weird extra power spike of out of turn stunning.

If that is all it is meant to do, then a simple edit to "can't use reactions" would give that desired effect without introducing shenanigans.

Given that it's been 4 reprints and a Remaster, this is either intended by the devs, or it simply isn't an important enough thing to fix.


SuperParkourio wrote:
Remember, effects that only inflict stunned 1 usually do so on a successful save. If it happens on a failure or critical failure, it's usually in combination with other effects like damage. It's not supposed to be a showstopper.

a)"usually" they don't. "usually" you need to crit fail/fail to get stunned. How many stun effects can you name that inflict Stun 1 on a successful save? more than 5?

b)Slow is also Slow 1 for 1 round on a success and it's a level 5 effect. Which is the same as Stun 1 if you don't account for the "can't act" of stun.

So, using the trap you mentioned as an example, a 12th level effect, having a requirement to trigger (you have to both not have seen it and you have to step on it) and doing the exact same as a level 5 effect, losing 1 action on your turn, makes the trap absolutely terrible for its level.

even accounting for the damage, it barely is something like a level 7-8 effect instead of the level 12 that it is.


I'm saying that stunned 1 on its own with no other debilitating effects alongside it is considered safe enough that many effects use stunned 1 on its own as the result of a successful save. If the effect inflicts stunned 1 on a fail or crit fail, it's probably because it's getting paired with something else, like double damage or forced movement.

And comparing Slow to Stunning Snare is like comparing apples to oranges. One is a spell you spend 2 actions and a spell slot to use immediately, and the other is something you can set up before the fight and spend money to acquire the parts for.

Furthermore, someone good enough at Crafting (which they should be by level 12) can make their snares impossible to detect by creatures not actively Searching and creatures without the needed Perception proficiency rank. So needing to fail to notice the snare to suffer the effects is not a huge downside for the snare.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
SuperParkourio wrote:

I'm saying that stunned 1 on its own with no other debilitating effects alongside it is considered safe enough that many effects use stunned 1 on its own as the result of a successful save. If the effect inflicts stunned 1 on a fail or crit fail, it's probably because it's getting paired with something else, like double damage or forced movement.

And comparing Slow to Stunning Snare is like comparing apples to oranges. One is a spell you spend 2 actions and a spell slot to use immediately, and the other is something you can set up before the fight and spend money to acquire the parts for.

Furthermore, someone good enough at Crafting (which they should be by level 12) can make their snares impossible to detect by creatures not actively Searching and creatures without the needed Perception proficiency rank. So needing to fail to notice the snare to suffer the effects is not a huge downside for the snare.

Dont you think that is a huge limitation of a snare though? I take back the thought that the stun 1 on fail is too harsh. Thanks for helping me realize that it needs it.

Most fights are not on your terms where you had time to prepare traps. When you do have that kind of advantage snares should get the better of unwary foes right? but anytime you are going into a dungeon or enemy mansion or whatever its their turf and your not getting the advantages of having access to the battle field before the enemies arrive.


SuperParkourio wrote:

I'm saying that stunned 1 on its own with no other debilitating effects alongside it is considered safe enough that many effects use stunned 1 on its own as the result of a successful save. If the effect inflicts stunned 1 on a fail or crit fail, it's probably because it's getting paired with something else, like double damage or forced movement.

And comparing Slow to Stunning Snare is like comparing apples to oranges. One is a spell you spend 2 actions and a spell slot to use immediately, and the other is something you can set up before the fight and spend money to acquire the parts for.

Furthermore, someone good enough at Crafting (which they should be by level 12) can make their snares impossible to detect by creatures not actively Searching and creatures without the needed Perception proficiency rank. So needing to fail to notice the snare to suffer the effects is not a huge downside for the snare.

And I'm saying you are wrong. There are a scant few effects that have Stunned 1 on a succesful save.

The normal is Stunned 1 only on a crit fail/fail. That's the vast majority of effects.

Also, Slow 1 is a level 5 effect and I'm comparing it to a level 12 effect that has a huge limitation, you need to walk on top of it. So yeah, if the trap only lost oyu an action, it would be very bad for its level.


Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:
I find it a little weird that "you can ready for when an foe acts" is too good to be true, but "stunned 1 deletes 4 actions instead of 1 if timed right" isn't. To me, this isn't a problem with ready, this is a problem with stunned having a particularly junky interaction with turn timing.

Yeah, I can almost see where you're coming from...

but then there's getting knocked out, killed, teleported, and probably a few other things which are also more effective if they happen in the middle of your turn rather than on your foe's turn that makes it strange to single-out just stunned.

Because, just like it's not a ready trigger problem, it's also not a stun condition problem - it's a natural downside to turn-based combat timing.

As for why it isn't too good to be true that stunning someone in the middle of their turn has a greater effect than outside of their turn; see the increased cost and risks. In a system that seeks to balance cost and effect, it shouldn't be surprising that voluntarily paying a higher cost when possible could produce a superior effect.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
thenobledrake wrote:
Because, just like it's not a ready trigger problem, it's also not a stun condition problem - it's a natural downside to turn-based combat timing.

Yeah, I would like to use this as an example for the Stunned condition in relation to other conditions whose benefits are solely determined by their position in the turn order.

Let's say I go right before an enemy, and I Demoralize them, making them Frightened 1. This only helps my attacks for the rest of the turn, and the rest of the enemy's turn. But, if I go before both the enemy and all of my allies, now my allies all get the benefit of Frightened 1 on their turns, as well as myself, and lastly, the enemy. Or even better, Frightful Presence. This means that if a PC walks into it during their turn, they will have a greatly reduced duration of the Frightened condition (since they will likely have spent at least one action getting into range), but if the enemy walks into the PCs, that will apply for both the rest of the enemy's turn, as well as the entirety of the PCs' turn.

Yet, in any instance, nobody is clamoring for Frightened to be buffed as a condition because it lasts for a very short duration, or that it needs to be nerfed because you're "double-dipping" on its benefits. Instead, what we get is "Don't Demoralize right before an enemy's turn, delay and set up for your allies to benefit as well," and nobody is viewing it as cheesing or breaking the system, but solid tactical gameplay.

So when somebody makes the strategic suggestion of "Try to Stun on the Enemy's turn so they lose their entire turn, plus reactions, plus one action the following turn, instead of just the ability to use reactions plus one action on the following turn," why do people cry outrage when it's basically just an inverted argument of the Frightened condition above? Because actions > modifiers? Because it's somehow not intended to work this way? Because players are purposefully trying to break the game?


Despite amount of controversy and a lot of very weak arguments denying "You Can't Act", the question boils down to a simple thing:

If Stunned X is weaker than Slowed X, as in it can't interrupt a turn in this specific edge case (that looks wonderful in theory, but nowhere near as good in play), then Stunned X shouldn't exist in the game.

In my interpretation and in my games, Stunned X is better than Slowed X, that's why it often has incapacitation trait and lasts a lot less as default.

Sovereign Court

Lightning Raven wrote:

Despite amount of controversy and a lot of very weak arguments denying "You Can't Act", the question boils down to a simple thing:

If Stunned X is weaker than Slowed X, as in it can't interrupt a turn in this specific edge case (that looks wonderful in theory, but nowhere near as good in play), then Stunned X shouldn't exist in the game.

In my interpretation and in my games, Stunned X is better than Slowed X, that's why it often has incapacitation trait and lasts a lot less as default.

You're making the wrong comparison.

Stunned 3 vs Slowed 1 for 3 rounds. Both are supposed to cost you 3 actions over their runtime, but with Slowed it's done at a different rate.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

This is a fascinating debate, because nobody is moving the goalposts, per se, but rather they seem to have been drawn at perpendicular angles to each other entirely by accident... Regardless, I don't think I've seen anything to suggest that stunned becomes a worthless condition if it can't double-dip when triggered during the target's turn, so I'll keep running it as "Stunned X means can't act until X actions have been lost, including remaining actions on the creature's turn" until then.

Aside, Frightened is a valid comparison for turn-based weirdness, but not a terribly good one. Both Fright 1 and Stun 1 always work during a character's turn (-1 to offensive stats, -1 action) and have a benefit that lasts until then (-1 to defenses, no reactions), but Frightened 1 doesn't become Frightened 3 or 4 if you readied to nail a foe with it at the beginning of their round, and imho nor should Stunned remove more than the 1 action given in its value.

Once again, I propose that if stunned-on-turn is an epidemic that is robbing your players of their ability to shut down enemy reactions, you can always rule that the target's reaction is given over to the Can't Act entirely and isn't regained until their next turn. I see no reason why any other actions should be eaten without counting toward the Stunned value--RAW be damned.


Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:
This is a fascinating debate, because nobody is moving the goalposts, per se, but rather they seem to have been drawn at perpendicular angles to each other entirely by accident... Regardless, I don't think I've seen anything to suggest that stunned becomes a worthless condition if it can't double-dip when triggered during the target's turn, so I'll keep running it as "Stunned X means can't act until X actions have been lost, including remaining actions on the creature's turn" until then.

It kinda does. Stunned 1 is basically equal Slow 1, with the bonus of less than a round without the target being able to use reactions. However, Slowed 1 just blows it out of the water because every single instance when it applies it's vastly superior in applicability (easier to land at least for 1 round, no incapacitation) and can last a lot, lot longer, specially

on the player side.

I would argue that under this line of thinking, printing Stunned 1 as a condition is largely meaningless, then. Might as well just have Slowed 1 and Stunned for X Rounds/Min as a condition instead (being equivalent to Stunned 3).

To me, the benefit of stopping the enemy round is a balancing factor that warrant the Incapacitation and low accuracy that come attached with Stunning effects.

If a player is willing to pay 2 actions and a reaction to gamble on such a tactic, I think it should pay off. The easiest to use (and also at will) tactic is with Flurry of Blows and even in this scenario, it's not game-breaking in the least. That's me saying as someone who played Monks for years in PF2e.


Don't forget there are monsters with Reactive Strike (aka Attack of Opportunity) that also force a save against stunned whenever they hit with a Strike. So that's a reaction that can regularly inflict on-turn stun. There are few such monsters, though.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So running Stunned RAW would make amped Forbidden Thought a lot more powerful and interesting. Maybe the designers do understand that stunning an enemy on their turn is far more powerful than stunning them between turns, thus why amped Forbidden Thought seems weak on paper, but when you consider the save is made when they attempt the action and the stunned 1 occurs then if they failed the amped Forbidden Thought, that would make it far more powerful as the stunned condition would ruin their round until they could regain actions on the following round.


Deriven Firelion wrote:

So running Stunned RAW would make amped Forbidden Thought a lot more powerful and interesting. Maybe the designers do understand that stunning an enemy on their turn is far more powerful than stunning them between turns, thus why amped Forbidden Thought seems weak on paper, but when you consider the save is made when they attempt the action and the stunned 1 occurs then if they failed the amped Forbidden Thought, that would make it far more powerful as the stunned condition would ruin their round until they could regain actions on the following round.

Yes, that's how I am running it in my tables, and honestly it seems fine.

Elsewise it would be a terrible psychic amp imo, not increasing the damage, not removing the 1min immunity, not increasing targets/range, and etc.

The only thing it does is give a chance to waste part (since it can do other actions before trying the banned one) of the enemy turn and that only on a failed save that they could even bypass if they have different actions to take than the one you put as a trigger.


Now I'm on the fence. On one hand, if stunned was intended to prevent actions not consumed by the condition, I would think it would be mentioned here, perhaps phrased like this.

Gaining and Losing Actions (alternative) wrote:
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 415. 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, though stunned still prevents you from using those actions.

On the other hand, yeah, a lot of the options capable of inflicting on-turn stunned are pretty weak if stunned can't prevent actions that it doesn't consume.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
SuperParkourio wrote:

Now I'm on the fence. On one hand, if stunned was intended to prevent actions not consumed by the condition, I would think it would be mentioned here, perhaps phrased like this.

Gaining and Losing Actions (alternative) wrote:
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 415. 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, though stunned still prevents you from using those actions.
On the other hand, yeah, a lot of the options capable of inflicting on-turn stunned are pretty weak if stunned can't prevent actions that it doesn't consume.

I think the designers tend to know about things like this and build with it in mind myself. I can't be absolutely sure minus their input, but it feels that way.

It's like when I first read Divine Smite and thought, "This is so weak. Charisma good damage? That is pretty pathetic for Divine Smite." Then you see how these very weak looking good damage abilities interact with weaknesses, then you see how powerful they can be.

In the case of stun on other turn abilities, they look weak if you use them and they stun causing the target to still be able to act, no offguard, and basically act as slow. If you factor in how they wrote the rule for when you get actions back and the fact you can't act, it makes stun different and more powerful than slow justifying the incapacitate trait. That makes something like amped Forbidden Thought seem even better because it stuns on their turn and no incap trait. It's another one of those abilities that looks very weak, but when you see all the rule interactions it is actually surprisingly strong.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes Amped Forbidden Thought is extremely good, but its not something that will happen often in an encounter that matter.

We just finished a Campaign with one player having and using Forbidden Thought alot. and it happend that sometimes we got a clutch stun on a hard enemy but most of the times it dont happen.

so a limited resource ability that is good but not a grantee feel inline.

------------------------------------------------------

I feel that most things in the design indicates that stun are more powerful then slow, the rules even say "Stunned overrides slowed" indicating its suppose to be the stronger effect.

if you think that some combination of things that can stun you on your turn is too powerful then question the balance of that thing rather then the condition itself, since most (if not all times) its locked behind low probability and/or high level.

the rules are quite clear when and how stun works, while you have it you cant act, and at the start if your turn you reduce your actions gained and the condition unless its a duration.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
I think the designers tend to know about things like this and build with it in mind myself. I can't be absolutely sure minus their input, but it feels that way.

Normally that might be true but the rules for Stunned have been a mess since PF2 first came out.

Remember that it took them until the 4th CRB errata to make Stunned X to be even workable. Before that stunned required you to pay actions at the start of your turn to reduce your Stunned value (same way it still works) but it also had a rule that said that you didn't regain any actions at the start of your turn if you couldn't act and thus you could never pay any actions and thus you could never reduce your Stunned value. Obviously that was a TBTBT situation that no one followed but it took years, and lots of pages of debate on here, for them to fix it.

And there is still language in the rules that shows that they just don't understand how Stunned actually works, just look at the Gaining and Losing Actions (page 442) section.

Quote:
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

I mean honestly, how do you write such a sentence. Stunned isn't unlike a condition that says you can't act, it is specifically a condition that does say you can't act.

Of course Stunned also changes the number of actions you regain and that might just be the source of the problem. Stunned both changes your number of actions and says you can't act and it seems the designers expect conditions to just do either of those.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Thezzaruz wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
I think the designers tend to know about things like this and build with it in mind myself. I can't be absolutely sure minus their input, but it feels that way.

Normally that might be true but the rules for Stunned have been a mess since PF2 first came out.

Remember that it took them until the 4th CRB errata to make Stunned X to be even workable. Before that stunned required you to pay actions at the start of your turn to reduce your Stunned value (same way it still works) but it also had a rule that said that you didn't regain any actions at the start of your turn if you couldn't act and thus you could never pay any actions and thus you could never reduce your Stunned value. Obviously that was a TBTBT situation that no one followed but it took years, and lots of pages of debate on here, for them to fix it.

And there is still language in the rules that shows that they just don't understand how Stunned actually works, just look at the Gaining and Losing Actions (page 442) section.

Quote:
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

I mean honestly, how do you write such a sentence. Stunned isn't unlike a condition that says you can't act, it is specifically a condition that does say you can't act.

Of course Stunned also changes the number of actions you regain and that might just be the source of the problem. Stunned both changes your number of actions and says you can't act and it seems the designers expect conditions to just do either of those.

there is an implication here and it should be spelled out in errata that they meant to say conditions that only say you cant act.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluemagetim wrote:
Thezzaruz wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
I think the designers tend to know about things like this and build with it in mind myself. I can't be absolutely sure minus their input, but it feels that way.

Normally that might be true but the rules for Stunned have been a mess since PF2 first came out.

Remember that it took them until the 4th CRB errata to make Stunned X to be even workable. Before that stunned required you to pay actions at the start of your turn to reduce your Stunned value (same way it still works) but it also had a rule that said that you didn't regain any actions at the start of your turn if you couldn't act and thus you could never pay any actions and thus you could never reduce your Stunned value. Obviously that was a TBTBT situation that no one followed but it took years, and lots of pages of debate on here, for them to fix it.

And there is still language in the rules that shows that they just don't understand how Stunned actually works, just look at the Gaining and Losing Actions (page 442) section.

Quote:
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

I mean honestly, how do you write such a sentence. Stunned isn't unlike a condition that says you can't act, it is specifically a condition that does say you can't act.

Of course Stunned also changes the number of actions you regain and that might just be the source of the problem. Stunned both changes your number of actions and says you can't act and it seems the designers expect conditions to just do either of those.
there is an implication here and it should be spelled out in errata...

Well, it has had 4 chances (as well as a Remaster print) to fix it, and it hasn't been done. And since they have put errata on it before, it is not like they couldn't have fixed it.

It really just reads like it is functioning as intended. Maybe if we had an Ask a Developer series go through step-by-step how the Stunned condition works mid-turn.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Bluemagetim wrote:
Thezzaruz wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
I think the designers tend to know about things like this and build with it in mind myself. I can't be absolutely sure minus their input, but it feels that way.

Normally that might be true but the rules for Stunned have been a mess since PF2 first came out.

Remember that it took them until the 4th CRB errata to make Stunned X to be even workable. Before that stunned required you to pay actions at the start of your turn to reduce your Stunned value (same way it still works) but it also had a rule that said that you didn't regain any actions at the start of your turn if you couldn't act and thus you could never pay any actions and thus you could never reduce your Stunned value. Obviously that was a TBTBT situation that no one followed but it took years, and lots of pages of debate on here, for them to fix it.

And there is still language in the rules that shows that they just don't understand how Stunned actually works, just look at the Gaining and Losing Actions (page 442) section.

Quote:
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

I mean honestly, how do you write such a sentence. Stunned isn't unlike a condition that says you can't act, it is specifically a condition that does say you can't act.

Of course Stunned also changes the number of actions you regain and that might just be the source of the problem. Stunned both changes your number of actions and says you can't act and it seems the designers expect conditions to just do either of those.
there is an implication here and it
...

And the Strike action still doesn't describe targeting unattended objects.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SuperParkourio wrote:
And the Strike action still doesn't describe targeting unattended objects.

So?

Is there a reason why it should?

Item damage and how it occurs is strictly on the GMs rulings.

Some may call for a Strike, others may rule that it's automatic, and others will make their own judgement.

Item damage was moved to the GM very deliberately and for specific reasons.


shroudb wrote:
SuperParkourio wrote:
And the Strike action still doesn't describe targeting unattended objects.

So?

Is there a reason why it should?

Item damage and how it occurs is strictly on the GMs rulings.

Some may call for a Strike, others may rule that it's automatic, and others will make their own judgement.

Item damage was moved to the GM very deliberately and for specific reasons.

The item damage rules weren't moved to GM Core. They are in Player Core where they belong, though material statistics can be found in GM Core. And Strike should specify that it can target unattended objects because there are multiple abilities that enhance Strikes against unattended objects, but none that actually let you perform them. Additionally, hazards are explicitly immune to anything that can't target objects, so not allowing Strikes to target unattended objects is too strict.

Yes, the GM can make a ruling, but this is a hole that should not exist in the first place after this many printings.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SuperParkourio wrote:
shroudb wrote:
SuperParkourio wrote:
And the Strike action still doesn't describe targeting unattended objects.

So?

Is there a reason why it should?

Item damage and how it occurs is strictly on the GMs rulings.

Some may call for a Strike, others may rule that it's automatic, and others will make their own judgement.

Item damage was moved to the GM very deliberately and for specific reasons.

The item damage rules weren't moved to GM Core. They are in Player Core where they belong, though material statistics can be found in GM Core. And Strike should specify that it can target unattended objects because there are multiple abilities that enhance Strikes against unattended objects, but none that actually let you perform them. Additionally, hazards are explicitly immune to anything that can't target objects, so not allowing Strikes to target unattended objects is too strict.

Yes, the GM can make a ruling, but this is a hole that should not exist in the first place after this many printings.

It's not a hole when item damage is intentionally the GMs province.

Again, how a GM will adjudicate you hitting an object is purely, by design, up to him.

No reason to comlicate stuff with adding rules on the Strike and then having the players go "I Strike the item as per the written rules" when the GM wants to run it elsewise.

In short, there's nothign to "errata" about Item Damage to begin with, so your whole argument that it's somehow similar to Stun is moot.


shroudb wrote:

It's not a hole when item damage is intentionally the GMs province.

Again, how a GM will adjudicate you hitting an object is purely, by design, up to him.

No reason to comlicate stuff with adding rules on the Strike and then having the players go "I Strike the item as per the written rules" when the GM wants to run it elsewise.

In short, there's nothign to "errata" about Item Damage to begin with, so your whole argument that it's somehow similar to Stun is moot.

It's only the GM's province insofar as any hole in the rules is the GM's province. If they wanted Striking objects to be purely GM fiat, there should have been a sentence like "The GM may allow you to Strike an unattended object." Instead, we have rules for attacking objects but alarmingly few attacks that can even target objects RAW. I'm okay with most spells not being able to damage objects, as it gives the ones that do more appeal. But... the Strike action? Seriously?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SuperParkourio wrote:
shroudb wrote:

It's not a hole when item damage is intentionally the GMs province.

Again, how a GM will adjudicate you hitting an object is purely, by design, up to him.

No reason to comlicate stuff with adding rules on the Strike and then having the players go "I Strike the item as per the written rules" when the GM wants to run it elsewise.

In short, there's nothign to "errata" about Item Damage to begin with, so your whole argument that it's somehow similar to Stun is moot.

It's only the GM's province insofar as any hole in the rules is the GM's province. If they wanted Striking objects to be purely GM fiat, there should have been a sentence like "The GM may allow you to Strike an unattended object." Instead, we have rules for attacking objects but alarmingly few attacks that can even target objects RAW. I'm okay with most spells not being able to damage objects, as it gives the ones that do more appeal. But... the Strike action? Seriously?

No, it is the GM province because the book says so. There's no hole.

"You can usually attack unattended items" leaves it clearly on the GM side to decide both when and how to do so.

As for "but for the Strike action?" question. It makes exactly as much sense for a spell to damage an item as for a strike. And that sense is left up to the GM.

Grand Archive

Did they actually remove the part about conditions not affecting your actions on the turn you gain the condition in? That's annoying


shroudb wrote:

No, it is the GM province because the book says so. There's no hole.

"You can usually attack unattended items" leaves it clearly on the GM side to decide both when and how to do so.

Firstly, that's not what "usually" means. It just means that exceptions exist, not necessarily that the GM must decide on every occasion. Secondly, that's not even what the rules say.

Item Damage wrote:
Normally an item takes damage only when a creature is directly attacking it—commonly targeted items include doors and traps. A creature that attacks you doesn't normally damage your armor or other gear, even if it hits you. However, the Shield Block reaction can cause your shield to take damage as you use it to prevent damage to yourself, and some monsters have exceptional abilities that can damage your items.

It's not saying you can often attack unattended objects. It's saying you can attack objects, but you often can't attack attended objects, then it spells out explicit exceptions already in the rules rather than saying "for instance, the GM might..."

shroudb wrote:
As for "but for the Strike action?" question. It makes exactly as much sense for a spell to damage an item as for a strike. And that sense is left up to the GM.

Here's a quote from an earlier errata.

Pathfinder Core Rulebook Errata wrote:
Pages 316-407 and 573: Damaging spells and items meant to harm PCs do way too much damage for your gear to survive if it could be targeted, so such spells almost never are supposed to be able to damage objects. A few target lines slipped by with "creatures or objects." Remove the ability to target or damage objects from acid splash, acid arrow, eclipse burst, polar ray, sunburst, fire ray, moon beam, force bolt, and the horn of blasting. Limit hydraulic push to "creatures and unattended objects."

A number of spells, including attack spells, had their ability to target objects at all completely taken away, but great care was taken to ensure that Hydraulic Push could still target unattended objects. It's clear that the developers wanted most but not all spells to be completely incapable of damaging objects. That's why Strike not being one of the attacks that works against unattended objects would be such a problem.


Powers128 wrote:
Did they actually remove the part about conditions not affecting your actions on the turn you gain the condition in? That's annoying

No, it's still there. The only thing they changed was some text that erroneously stated that being able to act was a prerequisite for regaining actions.

Grand Archive

SuperParkourio wrote:
Powers128 wrote:
Did they actually remove the part about conditions not affecting your actions on the turn you gain the condition in? That's annoying
No, it's still there. The only thing they changed was some text that erroneously stated that being able to act was a prerequisite for regaining actions.

Which page was it? That aught to settle it honestly


Powers128 wrote:
SuperParkourio wrote:
Powers128 wrote:
Did they actually remove the part about conditions not affecting your actions on the turn you gain the condition in? That's annoying
No, it's still there. The only thing they changed was some text that erroneously stated that being able to act was a prerequisite for regaining actions.
Which page was it? That aught to settle it honestly

According to AoN, it's in the Gaining and Losing Actions sidebar on page 442 in the Conditions Appendix.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SuperParkourio wrote:
shroudb wrote:

No, it is the GM province because the book says so. There's no hole.

"You can usually attack unattended items" leaves it clearly on the GM side to decide both when and how to do so.

Firstly, that's not what "usually" means. It just means that exceptions exist, not necessarily that the GM must decide on every occasion. Secondly, that's not even what the rules say.

Item Damage wrote:
Normally an item takes damage only when a creature is directly attacking it—commonly targeted items include doors and traps. A creature that attacks you doesn't normally damage your armor or other gear, even if it hits you. However, the Shield Block reaction can cause your shield to take damage as you use it to prevent damage to yourself, and some monsters have exceptional abilities that can damage your items.

It's not saying you can often attack unattended objects. It's saying you can attack objects, but you often can't attack attended objects, then it spells out explicit exceptions already in the rules rather than saying "for instance, the GM might..."

shroudb wrote:
As for "but for the Strike action?" question. It makes exactly as much sense for a spell to damage an item as for a strike. And that sense is left up to the GM.

Here's a quote from an earlier errata.

Pathfinder Core Rulebook Errata wrote:
Pages 316-407 and 573: Damaging spells and items meant to harm PCs do way too much damage for your gear to survive if it could be targeted, so such spells almost never are supposed to be able to damage objects. A few target lines slipped by with "creatures or objects." Remove the ability to target or damage objects from acid splash, acid arrow, eclipse burst, polar ray, sunburst, fire ray, moon beam, force bolt, and the horn of blasting. Limit hydraulic push to "creatures and unattended objects."
A number of spells, including attack spells, had their ability to target objects at all completely taken away, but great care was taken to ensure that...

"Usually" makes the "when" up to GM.

"Attack" instead of Strike makes the "how" up to GM.

It's clear enough.


Powers128 wrote:
Did they actually remove the part about conditions not affecting your actions on the turn you gain the condition in? That's annoying

This was never adjusted, the issue becomes that if you are Stunned, you can't act, period.

So if you are Stunned mid-turn, and you have actions left, you cannot do anything with those actions simply because you can't take actions while the condition is present. And those actions you don't take, like you claim, doesn't reduce the Stunned condition value down any because the Stunned condition isn't being affected by the current turn.

Grand Archive

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Powers128 wrote:
Did they actually remove the part about conditions not affecting your actions on the turn you gain the condition in? That's annoying

This was never adjusted, the issue becomes that if you are Stunned, you can't act, period.

So if you are Stunned mid-turn, and you have actions left, you cannot do anything with those actions simply because you can't take actions while the condition is present. And those actions you don't take, like you claim, doesn't reduce the Stunned condition value down any because the Stunned condition isn't being affected by the current turn.

I never actually claimed anything in this thread, man. Still, would like to see some clarification from developers


shroudb wrote:

"Usually" makes the "when" up to GM.

"Attack" instead of Strike makes the "how" up to GM.
It's clear enough.

No, "it's up to the GM" makes it up to the GM. And where are you getting "You can usually attack unattended items" from anyway? You can always attack unattended items, provided that you have an actual attack that can target unattended items.

Is Strike one of those attacks? I should hope so! But I've met players who claim that Strike not being able to target objects is perfectly intentional because it stops people from bypassing puzzles and skill challenges by breaking down doors and such, even though that's encouraged in the item damage rules.

So no, it's not clear.

51 to 100 of 207 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Stunned: if "can't act" is a mistake, then what? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.