Can creature immune to poison, suffer form the nauseated effect?

[Hypersmurf]

There is nothing in the core rules that can explicitly give them the nauseated condition.

Ah, now that, I'll happily agree with.

But if they do incur it, they're not immune to it.

Unlike the stunned condition, for example.

-Hyp.

 

[Caliban]

Ah, now that, I'll happily agree with.

But if they do incur it, they're not immune to it.

Unlike the stunned condition, for example.

-Hyp.

Do you honestly think that it is intended that creatures without a physiology be vulnerable to nausea, when nothing in the core rules can actually give it to them? When the real world condition that the game mechanic is supposed to represent requires having a living physiology?

 

[Hypersmurf]

When the real world condition that the game mechanic is supposed to represent requires having a living physiology?

A swarm of bats can give someone the nauseated condition due to 'distraction'.

It's Fort negates, so it can't affect the creatures we're discussing. But it's effectively just restricting someone to a move action.

-Hyp.

 

[Caliban]

A swarm of bats can give someone the nauseated condition due to 'distraction'.

It's Fort negates, so it can't affect the creatures we're discussing. But it's effectively just restricting someone to a move action.

-Hyp.

You didn't actually answer my question.

 

[Hypersmurf]

You didn't actually answer my question.

Someone is distracted by a swarm of bats.

"What effect should that have?"
"Maybe restrict them to a Move action?"
"Okay. Well, we've already got a condition for that... Nauseated. We'll use that."

Why should 'being distracted' require a living physiology?

-Hyp.

 

[Caliban]

Someone is distracted by a swarm of bats.

"What effect should that have?"
"Maybe restrict them to a Move action?"
"Okay. Well, we've already got a condition for that... Nauseated. We'll use that."

Why should 'being distracted' require a living physiology?

-Hyp.

Why should "being distracted" be equivalent to "nausea" when they are actually nothing like each other? Sounds like you have demonstrated laziness on the part of whoever wrote up the bat swarm.

You are still avoiding the question I asked you. Afraid a straight answer will undermine your position?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Why should "being distracted" be equivalent to "nausea" when they are actually nothing like each other? Sounds like you have demonstrated laziness on the part of whoever wrote up the bat swarm.

Sounds like it's a versatile condition, to me

You are still avoiding the question I asked you. Afraid a straight answer will undermine your position?

Hmm? For the same reason a skeleton can be Blinded by Glitterdust, despite having no eyes:

[LucyLawless]A wizard did it.[/LucyLawless]

-Hyp.

 

[Caliban]

Sounds like it's a versatile condition, to me

Sounds like your avoiding the issue. Nausea is not merely "being distracted", although it could certainly be a source of distraction.

They were just lazy. The Nausea condition had the game mechanic effect they wanted, so they used it in spite of it not matching the flavor of that they described.

Hmm? For the same reason a skeleton can be Blinded by Glitterdust, despite having no eyes:

[LucyLawless]A wizard did it.[/LucyLawless]

Skeletons have something that serves as eyes. Those little points of light in their eye sockets. Since they do in fact use vision (or darkvision) they can be blinded by covering whatever it is they use for vision. Which is what glitterdust does when you fail the save.

And you are still sidestepping the question I asked you:

Do you honestly think that it is intended that creatures without a physiology be vulnerable to nausea, when nothing in the core rules can actually give it to them?

Nausea is a physiological reaction. If you don't have a physiology how can you experience nausea?

 

[Hypersmurf]

They were just lazy. The Nausea condition had the game mechanic effect they wanted, so they used it in spite of it not matching the flavor of that they described.

Right. So if you have something that gives the mechanical condition 'nausea', it doesn't have to match the flavour of 'requires a living physiology'.

Do you honestly think that it is intended that creatures without a physiology be vulnerable to nausea, when nothing in the core rules can actually give it to them?

Given that they're not immune? Why not?

Nausea is a physiological reaction. If you don't have a physiology how can you experience nausea?

Magic.

-Hyp.

 

[Caliban]

Right. So if you have something that gives the mechanical condition 'nausea', it doesn't have to match the flavour of 'requires a living physiology'.

But you shouldn't use the nausea condition in that case. Nausea is a physiological reaction, not a magical condition, not a state of distraction.

Using a named condition that has similar mechanics but not actually equivalent to the effect you want to represent is just poor game design.

Create a new condition and say it has the same effects as nausea if you want to borrow the nausea mechanic.

Otherwise you end up with a situation where someone is immune to nausea (such as a Warforged), and is now immune to being distracted by a swarm of bats. "I don't get nauseas, therefore things flying around my face and head don't distract me."

How does this make any sense?

Given that they're not immune? Why not?

Apparently you refuse to give a straight answer to this question. All you give are evasions. So be it.

Magic.

-Hyp.

That strikes me as the kind of answer you fall back on when you can't actually support your arguements. Some things in D&D have no other explanation, but this isn't one of them. I expected better of you Hyp.