James McMurray
First Post
If you're going to keep arguing with the wind, at least bring something new.
Dazzed until grabbed?
Gruns
Explorer
Usually...
Unless of course, you're Dazed. Specific rule trumps general rule, and all that.
Really, this case of denial is almost starting to get hard to watch. You ask for rules and references, and when they are quoted with explicit detail to you, you -for whatever reason and without logical explanation- simply choose to ignore them... Why is it so hard for you to let the gelatinous cube do his thing? What do you have against oozes?!?
Later
Gruns
Unless of course, you're Dazed. Specific rule trumps general rule, and all that.
Really, this case of denial is almost starting to get hard to watch. You ask for rules and references, and when they are quoted with explicit detail to you, you -for whatever reason and without logical explanation- simply choose to ignore them... Why is it so hard for you to let the gelatinous cube do his thing? What do you have against oozes?!?
Later
Gruns
That "other effects" thing that happens at the start of your turn doesn't apply to any old effect that happens your way. It is specifically effects that happen at the start of your turn. The dazed condition says nothing about happening at the start of your turn. The gelatinous cube power says nothing about the dazed condition happening at the start of your turn. The rules quotes are well and good, but don't actually explain why dazed should be applied (for the duration of the whole turn) during that 'start of your turn effects' phase. Maybe I've missed something, but I'd like to know where people are getting that dazed is a 'start of the turn' type effect.
In any case, this doesn't make 'dazed until the target escapes' into a weak power. If I grab the healer, he can in one round attempt to escape, heal someone, attack me, and use some defensive immediate reaction. If it grabs the healer, the healer can still attempt to escape but if the attempt fails, that's the end of that.
In any case, this doesn't make 'dazed until the target escapes' into a weak power. If I grab the healer, he can in one round attempt to escape, heal someone, attack me, and use some defensive immediate reaction. If it grabs the healer, the healer can still attempt to escape but if the attempt fails, that's the end of that.
DracoSuave
First Post
No no no no.
No.
You still -get- your three actions. But, you can only -use- one of them. That's a different can of worms entirely. Under dazed, once you've used one of them, you've reached the limitation of what dazed allows you to do. You haven't used up your three actions, so if that action happens to lift dazed, then the dazed condition, having ended, no longer sets a restriction on how you may spend the actions you have.
It's similiar to how being immobilized doesn't stop you from actually taking most movement actions, it merely prevents you from leaving your square, making doing so pointless.
Other restrictions that work the same way: You can have multiple action points, but you're restricted to spending one per encounter. Lift the restriction, and you can spend the action points you have. You have multiple healing surges, but you can only spend them under special circumstances (Second Wind, power usage, etc). You have multiple actions, but while dazed you can only access one of them per turn.
Notice the wording on the 'take actions' part of your turn: 'You get a....'
Contrast that with dazed: 'You can take either a standard action, a move action, or a minor action on your turn.' It doesn't change the number or types of actions you -get-. If that were the case, it'd say 'You only get a standard action on your turn.' It does't override what you -get-, it overides what you're allowed to -take.-
If you're no longer dazed, for example, you can now take opportunity actions, and immediate actions. If it worked the other way, being dazed would prevent you from having that immediate action assigned to you, and if lifted, you'd have it pre-depleted and could not use it.
Hogwash.
No.
You still -get- your three actions. But, you can only -use- one of them. That's a different can of worms entirely. Under dazed, once you've used one of them, you've reached the limitation of what dazed allows you to do. You haven't used up your three actions, so if that action happens to lift dazed, then the dazed condition, having ended, no longer sets a restriction on how you may spend the actions you have.
It's similiar to how being immobilized doesn't stop you from actually taking most movement actions, it merely prevents you from leaving your square, making doing so pointless.
Other restrictions that work the same way: You can have multiple action points, but you're restricted to spending one per encounter. Lift the restriction, and you can spend the action points you have. You have multiple healing surges, but you can only spend them under special circumstances (Second Wind, power usage, etc). You have multiple actions, but while dazed you can only access one of them per turn.
Notice the wording on the 'take actions' part of your turn: 'You get a....'
Contrast that with dazed: 'You can take either a standard action, a move action, or a minor action on your turn.' It doesn't change the number or types of actions you -get-. If that were the case, it'd say 'You only get a standard action on your turn.' It does't override what you -get-, it overides what you're allowed to -take.-
If you're no longer dazed, for example, you can now take opportunity actions, and immediate actions. If it worked the other way, being dazed would prevent you from having that immediate action assigned to you, and if lifted, you'd have it pre-depleted and could not use it.
Hogwash.
I think that just as the application of the dazed state immediately causes you to lose the rest of your actions, the removal of the dazed state ought to restore the rest of your actions.
It seems to be appropriately balanced that way.
I.e.
If you are dazed during your turn and have already taken an action during that turn, you can take no further actions.
If you are dazed during your turn and break the dazed state before the end of your turn, you can take the remaining actions.
Sounds OK to me.
Carl
It seems to be appropriately balanced that way.
I.e.
If you are dazed during your turn and have already taken an action during that turn, you can take no further actions.
If you are dazed during your turn and break the dazed state before the end of your turn, you can take the remaining actions.
Sounds OK to me.
Carl
How about Customer Service going against your opinion?
CustServ said:
<points>
Last edited:
Journeymanmage
First Post
You said:
Quote:
Done. Clearly and to the point.
Quote:
I presented the information for that also ... and asked you to present your side of the discussion. Along with My comment: "Turning that question around, show us where it says you gain those actions back...."
Your only response has been opinion and a lack of any quantitative or qualitative information. When presented with information you requested, contrary to your believe that said information exists, you dismiss or ignore it's existence.
As to:
That's seems more like you're unhappy that you have no substance to offer to the discussion and are ready to cover your ears to information that you don't like.
GoLu at least provides an opinion as to why something may or may not work the way as presented.
During part 2 of Mr. Cube's turn, he attacked Bob and engulfed him. Is Bob Dazed? Yes, but it has no effect on Bob because it's not Bob's turn.
During part 3 of Mr. Cube's turn, the Cube does some book keeping such as makes saves or resolve "end of your turn" effects.
End turn of Mr. Cube, move to next initiative:
Bob goes next.
Now, in the "blink of an eye" between the end of Mr. Cube's turn and beginning of Bob's turn, (no game effects occur), what is Bob's status? The Cube has engulfed him and being engulfed by the Cube causes the effect Dazed and 10 Acid.
With the beginning of Bob's turn, it would be good to know his status / situation. Which brings us to: (Part 1 of a turn)
"The Start of Your Turn"
-"Before you act, you keep track of certain effects. ..."
Ongoing Damage: Bob takes 10 Acid damage.
...
Other Effects: ***
Okay at this point I take it that GoLu believes that Engulfed / Dazed does not belong here because "Other Effects" is only for: "It is specifically effects that happen at the start of your turn. "
Now see McMurray, that's how you add to the discussion. GoLu presents a different point of view and provides information, which can be supported by the RAW. He asks why x or y should be viewed in such a light or for clerification on points.
To GoLu:
I believe that we can agree that Bob was Engulfed -> Dazed on the Cube's turn. Part 1 of the turn seems to be a "bookkeeping" of what happened since the end of Bob's Part 3 of the last turn. At some point, and Other Effects seemed like the best example/place to note it, we need acknowledge that Bob is Dazed. He was not Engulfed/Dazed last turn, at least for this example, he was engulfed/dazed on the Cube's turn and now as it is the beginning of Bob's turn during the "bookkeeping" phase, it needs to be noted. It's not that he became Engulfed->Dazed now/"at the beginning of the turn", it's that he is Dazed from the point he was Engulfed, but this is Bob's "bookkeeping" phase.
We could just go with Bob was Engulfed->Dazed on the Cube's turn, which is what happened. If we do so, we can skip right to Bob's Turn part 2 already knowing that Bob is Dazed. At the beginning of Bob's Part 2 turn, "Actions on Your Turn": the 1st item on the list is:
Your Actions: You get the following three actions on your turn.
Now either Bob was Engulfed->Dazed during the Cube's turn or we "bookkept" that information during Part 1 of Bob's turn. Bob does not become Dazed after we begin Part 2, he was Dazed before we got to Part 2. As such, Dazed turns the 3 actions granted into 1 action allowed. "You may either take a standard action, a move action or a minor action. Other Free Actions can occur, but the 1st item on the list, "getting 3 actions" has already been reduced to getting 1 action.
DracoSuave also brings up a few interesting ways to look at it. It still seems to me that Bob is given 3 actions for his turn, but Dazed restricts him to only being able make use 1 of them, therefore he has only 1 action for that turn. Removing the Dazed effect means that in future turns he is no longer Dazed and can take advantage of having 3 actions.
Part 2 of turn starts, Bob gets 3 actions, Dazed reduces Bob to "... can take a standard action, a move action or a minor action on your turn."
No actions have been spent. Bob uses a Free Action to use an AP to get a Standard Action, assume Bob escapes, he is no longer Engulfed->Dazed. But as the Part 2 of the turn has already started, in which he was Dazed, he does not regain the lost actions. It does not state that as he is no longer Dazed he may use a full compliment of actions this turn.
DracoSauve stated:
I agree that once you are no longer dazed, you are no longer restricted, but I believe that at the beginning of Part 2 you were "allocated" 3 actions and that being dazed restricted you to only 1 action. Not you can only use 1 of 3, but that you now only have 1. As Bob has already passed the "allocation" phase, having the status effect removed does not restore the lost actions. The negative effect is gone, but it has already done it's "damage".
------
Now I believe GoLu and DracoSauve valid points. I disagree on the interpetation they come up with, but they present other views with information that can be reviewed and discussed and seem strong.
As to McMurray, you don't support your point of view, you claimed
That was proven wrong.
You didn't even start to discuss, nor argue, it. You made unsubstantiated claims and ignored information given to you, that you asked for, when it did not fit your view.
Did it, you just didn't seem to like hearing it.
Bob was Dazed, he lost potential actions as he can only have 1. Bob uses an AP to get a 2nd action, he uses 1 action to remove Dazed. He is down to 1 action. Where does it say he gets the lost actions back? Don't think you responded to that request. If Bob was suffering from 5 ongoing fire and removes the 5 ongoing fire does Bob get the hit points back because he is no longer suffering 5 ongoing fire? ... No.
Correct, but as one of several people in the discussion, I presented information and one view on how to interpret that information. Others in the discussion offered information and views and how they believe that information should be interpretted. You offered very little and did not support your own opinion except with "you can't prove it" and you were shown to be wrong that the information was not available, it was....
That seems to come off as a snide comment. During this thread "at least" I brought something, besides "you can't prove it" (Proved).
If you're going to say "but am too lazy to argue it", you didn't add anything to the discussion and if you are to lazy to "argue it", then why are you still here?
Journeymanmage
First Post
Thanks Keenath.
and after all this ... I still stand-by my statement from my 1st post:
I believed the rules said one thing ... but for the fun of the Players (and GM) ... I'm for playing it the otherway.
It sounds like the core of this disagreement is whether the dazed condition prevents you from taking actions after your first, or whether it stops you from ever getting those actions in the first place.
Frankly, I don't think the PHB contains a solid the answer to that. It does use both "take" and "get" in different places, but it's unclear whether that's at all significant since neither are precisely defined game terms. Despite the CustServ quote, I'm still inclined to play it the first way. The alternative suggests that, among other things, an immediate action daze wouldn't be that impressive because the target could still take their full set of three actions even though dazed.
Frankly, I don't think the PHB contains a solid the answer to that. It does use both "take" and "get" in different places, but it's unclear whether that's at all significant since neither are precisely defined game terms. Despite the CustServ quote, I'm still inclined to play it the first way. The alternative suggests that, among other things, an immediate action daze wouldn't be that impressive because the target could still take their full set of three actions even though dazed.
James McMurray
First Post
I've already told you where you can find my responses, because there's nothing new here. You don't get the actions back because you never lose them. Daze is not a "start of your turn" condition, so at least 1/3 of your argument is meaningless.
How is saying "I've heard it all before and it's already been refuted" ignoring it? That you don't want to find the multi-page thread on the issue is you ignoring what's gone before.
Yep, but his arguments are also old.
I added that to the discussion before this thread even started. Try to keep up.
It's all been done before is not an unsunstantiated claim, it's fact.
If you're going to argue from authority, you might not want to pick a source that claims blasts and bursts are infinitely high, and that has countless "rulings" that disagree with other rulings they've made.
Similar Threads
Pathfinder 1E
Loot help
