Periapt of Cascading Health and Dazed

[Chzbro]

Greetings EN World community.

Long time lurker, first time poster.

Recently, my group ran into this situation:

A character who was dazed used a minor action to activate a Periapt of Cascading Health to remove the dazed condition. At the time, the DM ruled that even though the character was no longer dazed, he had already taken his one action allowed and therefore could not take any more actions.

The player argued that once the condition is gone, the character is no longer dazed and has only used a minor action, and thus still has a move and standard action remaining.

The player further argued that a dazed Warden who succeeded on a save vs. the dazed condition at the beginning of his turn would be able to act normally which suggests that removing the dazed condition also removes all the effects of being dazed (just as removing poisoned condition removes the effect of the poison and removing the slowed condition removes the effect of being slowed) regardless of when in the round that condition is removed (beginning, middle, or end).

In the interests of full disclosure, I am the player in the above example, and while I am fairly certain that I read discussions similar to this on these very boards, I'll be diggered if I can point to anything specific to support my position. At the same time, my DM (who is also an EN World member) can't find anything specific to support his.

If anyone can shed any light on this one way or the other, it would be greatly appreciated (especially if you agree with me).

 

[keterys]

In this instance, the player is correct. In order for Dazed to work like the DM desires, it would have to be worded that Dazed causes you to automatically expend or lose those actions, or not recover the use of them on its turn, or any number of other ways of not making it simply a strict limit.

However, it's not - so if you can get rid of dazed on your turn, such as from a save from an action point from an inspiring warlord, font of life, etc, then you are no longer restricted. Rules on P269 indicate which actions you receive per turn. If you've spent a minor, and you are no longer under Daze's restriction of only one standard/move/minor, then you still have a standard and move. Similarly, if you take a move action and trigger an opportunity attack or trap that dazes you, you may finish your move action but you may no longer take a standard action or minor action because you're now limited to one action per turn.

Fwiw, even if Dazed said something like 'Instead of getting a standard, move, and minor action at the start of your turn, you instead only get a standard action' then Font of Life would still be able to get rid of Dazed with no harmful effect, because you may choose to take the free save as your first 'start of turn' process.

 

[Piratecat]

My general rule when unsupported by actual rules is "what's the most fun for the players?" In this case, I'd certainly have let the player take their move and standard action. That's way cooler and more heroic than having a bored player and an ineffectual hero.

Incidentally, welcome!

 

[keterys]

Would you rule that in both instances, Piratecat?

That is to say, in the one described by the OP and also in a situation when someone is dazed by an opportunity attack while taking a move action?

 

[the Jester]

In my campaign, I've ruled as the player suggests- if you remove the dazed condition, you are no longer dazed, and may continue to take actions until you are out of actions.

I will admit that I haven't looked too closely at the rules on this, however.

 

[Ryujin]

The player is correct and should be rewarded for having the foresight to have such an item, which to me means gaining the additional normal actions when using the item at the beginning of the round. If it was a regular save, which occurs at the end of the character's round, then there would be no additional actions possible. It isn't.

 

[KarinsDad]

I was going to agree with the DM on this at first, but after reading the actual rules, I am going to agree with the player.

One other note that I do not think was mentioned. If the rules did not work this way, then the Periapt would be useless for removing the condition in the scenario that the condition was imposed to the end of the target's turn.

Effectively, the item would work in some scenarios and would not really work (i.e. Daze would go away anyway) in another.

That makes the item a lot less useful as well.

 

[Radiating Gnome]

Well, Dog Farts.

In the interest of full disclosure, I'm the DM in question, but our group has two DMs and we were both of the same mind in this instance.

I'm going to present my case because I'm not real good at backing down in the face of such overwhelming opposition . . . or because I'm just a pain in the rear.

IMO, the rules are very unclear, but I ruled the way I did and defended it based on the idea that the available actions are issued to the player at a specific moment in his turn -- after the "beginning of your turn", and right at the moment the player starts to take actions.

In the beginning of your turn, according to the PHB, you take ongoing damage, conditions that end at the beginning of your turn end, and other administrative things happen. And, in the case of the Warden, the PC get to make a save against ongoing conditions before they affect him for the round.

Then the player actually takes his turn, and is issued his actions. Standard, Move, Minor for most, but just a single standard action for a dazed character.

The Dazed character in this case takes his action, and uses his periapt to remove the dazed condition. But he's already missed this (albeit imaginary) moment at the start of his turn when those actions were issued, so he doesn't retroactively get those actions that his dazed condition robbed him of.

I see this as essentially differen from the warden, since the warden's ability happens during the beginning of the player's turn, a very clearly defined sub-portion of the player's turn that takes place before the player takes (or is granted) his actions.

Frankly, the best argument I've seen so far in this thread, IMO, is Piratecat's -- what's the most fun for the player. That one, hands down, has me ready to drop the whole issue.

I would agree that the periapt is of limited use when trying to remove a dazed condition -- excpept that it would guarantee success, rather than relying on a save. But in other cases, it's just as valuable as it always has been. A minor action, taken before a move action, could remove a slowed or immobilized condition and allow the PC to move freely with the subsequent move action.

I'm totally out on a limb here, and I know it. I'm constructing the idea of a moment at the start of the player's turn when actions are dealt out like cards to a poker player. That's not in the rules, but there's nothing in the rules I've seen that describes how those actions are granted.

My own rubric for trying to sort out rules readings, has always been "What's simpler." It seems like when there are interpretatiosn that bump into each other, the designers usually end up on the side of the one that is easiest to handle. With that in mind . . . my own interpretation seems easiest.

You're Dazed.
You get one Action.
You spend that action with the periapt to removed the dazed condition.
That's your turn.

Simple. Adding complexity to it by allowing that to restore lost actions doesn't ring true to me. When I start trying to defend it in more detail, that's when I start to make it confusing with questions about when actions are awarded and how . . .

Anyway . . . like I said, I'm very much surprised that there was so much support for one reading and none for mine . . . . but the "what's more fun" angle really does seem to tip the balance.

Of course . . . can you imagine the player trying to debate this at the table with me?
Player: "I should get my other two actions now, right?"
DM: "That's now how it works. Nope, you're done."
Player: "But . . . it would be more fun if I did "
DM: "Hmmm. You're right . . . ."

I find it persuasive away from the table, but somehow at the table I have a hard time imagining being able to accept that as an argument in the heat of the moment.

-rg

 

[Ryujin]

So you stand there and get hit rather than moving or making an attack that might have a condition rider on it also, in order to guarantee that you 'make a save'? Seems rather counter productive. If that is the way that you see that item, then I would have it up for sale at the next town.

Remember: Few rules, many exceptions. Also remember the question that many here ask on a regular basis; "What is the most fun for the character?" In this case the character has something that could potentially, once a day, turn a round of standing there with his finger up his butt, into a round where he's useful to the party. IMHO that's what that item is for.

 

[keterys]

Like I said - it definitely could have been possible for Dazed to limit the actions you get from Standard, Move, and Minor to just a Standard. If that's what it did, then absolutely the item in question would not work.

It just doesn't do that by RAW. It limits the number of standard/move/minor actions you can take per turn to one... so if you move then get Dazed, you can't take your standard or minor afterwards. This is the same situation that happens if someone is hit by an opportunity attack that slows or immobilizes (or a fighter's Combat Superiority) - effectively limiting the move action you're already taking. Similarly, if you minor and get unDazed, you can now take your Standard and Move.

If it helps, consider the following:

A character is currently immobilized and slowed, separate effects that are both save ends. As a standard action, the PC makes an attack that grants him a saving throw. He succeeds against the immobilized condition.

Would you say he can't now use his move action to move two squares, because he started his turn immobilized?

What if instead of taking his move right away, he spent a minor action to get a save against the slowed condition using the Periapt? On a success, he could presumably then take his move action to move five squares, even though he started the round both immobilized and slowed.