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

[Hypersmurf]

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."

They're immune to the nauseated condition, which includes becoming nauseous and being distracted by bats.

It's like how someone can't make Attacks of Opportunity while balancing unless they have Combat Reflexes (assuming no ranks in Balance).

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

How is that an evasion? I think constructs should be subjects to the nauseated condition because they have no immunity to the nauseated condition.

It's not a complex position.

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.

If it were intended to be impossible for skeletons to become nauseated, they would be immune. They're not, therefore it's possible.

How? Magic. How else would you like me to describe a magical curse of nausea?

-Hyp.

 

[Caliban]

They're immune to the nauseated condition, which includes becoming nauseous and being distracted by bats.

It's like how someone can't make Attacks of Opportunity while balancing unless they have Combat Reflexes (assuming no ranks in Balance).

How is that an evasion? I think constructs should be subjects to the nauseated condition because they have no immunity to the nauseated condition.

It's not a complex position.

If it were intended to be impossible for skeletons to become nauseated, they would be immune. They're not, therefore it's possible.

How? Magic. How else would you like me to describe a magical curse of nausea?

-Hyp.

You have been avoiding questions I'm actually asking you, instead you keep reframing the question to something else and answering that instead.

I had to ask you for your honest opinion on a specific point, multiple times, before you would give an answer that wasn't evasive. Even now, you haven't really given an honest opinion. You've just restated the text.

If they actually intended for undead/constructs to be subject to nausea, why is there nothing in any of the core rulebooks or WOTC supplements that actually causes nausea in undead or constructs?

Why is the only "Living Construct" in the books immune to nausea? That's certainly not a trait of a living creature.

I think the evidence overwhelmingly points to this being an oversight on the part of the designers. For all practical purposes, undead and constructs are immune to nausea, because there isn't anything that can actually give it to them. (I don't buy the Bestow Curse option. You might be able to give them a condition that has the same game mechanic effects as nausea [restricted to move actions], but it wouldn't be nausea. They wouldn't be feeling the urge to vomit, which is what nausea is.)

 

[Hypersmurf]

(I don't buy the Bestow Curse option. You might be able to give them a condition that has the same game mechanic effects as nausea [restricted to move actions], but it wouldn't be nausea. They wouldn't be feeling the urge to vomit, which is what nausea is.)

Ahh... like being distracted by bats, you mean?

I guess I'd just go with whatever condition they call that

-Hyp.

 

[Caliban]

Ahh... like being distracted by bats, you mean?

I guess I'd just go with whatever condition they call that

-Hyp.

Sure, since constructs and undead can't actually be distracted by bats.

Like I said, that's an obviously inappropriate use of the "nausea" condition. I'm glad you agree with me.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Sure, since constructs and undead can't actually be distracted by bats.

Only 'cos the bats give them a Fort save. My curse gives them a Will save, so they're not immune.

It's like how they're immune to Blindness, but not to blindness caused by Glitterdust.

Like I said, that's an obviously inappropriate use of the "nausea" condition.

It's a Core use of the 'nauseated' condition. Which says, to me, that it's entirely appropriate.

-Hyp.

 

[Caliban]

Only 'cos the bats give them a Fort save. My curse gives them a Will save, so they're not immune.

Your theoretical Curse isn't core, so it isn't really relevent.

It's like how they're immune to Blindness, but not to blindness caused by Glitterdust.

I disagree. Blindess has many possible causes, only some of which rely on affecting your physiology. Glitterdust doesn't directly affect you, it just covers your eyes.

Nausea is specifically a physiological or emotional reaction, and the condition used in D&D is the physiological one (even if you had some thing that caused the emotion nausea, it would probably be mind-affecting).

It's a Core use of the 'nauseated' condition. Which says, to me, that it's entirely appropriate.

-Hyp.

Only if you ignore what the condition is supposed to represent. It's not appropriate Hyp.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Caliban, how can you debate that because there is no Core affect that causes nausea that currently can affect undead and constructs that they are immune to the nausea effect, but at the same time ignore bat causing the nausea effect in Core ability as being valid?

What I'm saying is that your whole basis for Undead and Constructs being immune to nausea is that Core doesn't have any affect that causes them to be nauseated.

While your argument that bats shouldn't be allowed to cause nausea even though Core supports this effect occuring because of flavor.

Either Core is always correct or it can be wrong. Which is it? Or is it only correct when you deem it so, and only wrong when you see a problem?

 

[Caliban]

Caliban, how can you debate that because there is no Core affect that causes nausea that currently can affect undead and constructs that they are immune to the nausea effect, but at the same time ignore bat causing the nausea effect in Core ability as being valid?

I'm not ignoring it, I'm saying it bad game design.

What I'm saying is that your whole basis for Undead and Constructs being immune to nausea is that Core doesn't have any affect that causes them to be nauseated.

I'm saying that they should be immune, and that for all practical purposes, they ARE immune. I'm saying that the evidence points to it not being a listed immunity as an oversight on the game designers part.

Believe it or not, sometimes they make mistakes.

While your argument that bats shouldn't be allowed to cause nausea even though Core supports this effect occuring because of flavor.

I'm saying that the condition they cause should not be called "nausea", because nausea is not what they are causing. They are causing you to be "distracted".

Either Core is always correct or it can be wrong. Which is it? Or is it only correct when you deem it so, and only wrong when you see a problem?

Quit trying to put words in my mouth.

I'm saying the core rules are wrong in both cases, for different reasons. Sometime you have to use your brain a little, and look beyond the text. Sometimes you actually have to think about what it means, and not just blindly follow the text. This isn't a computer roleplaying game.

The rules aren't perfect, but you can usually fill in the holes with a little common sense and logic.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Your theoretical Curse isn't core, so it isn't really relevent.

It fits the Core guidelines for the Bestow Curse spell perfectly

What I'm saying is that your whole basis for Undead and Constructs being immune to nausea is that Core doesn't have any affect that causes them to be nauseated.

Well, he's right about that - the Core rules have no effect that explicitly causes the nauseated condition that can affect undead or constructs.

Including Distraction [Ex], since it allows a Fort save.

-Hyp.

 

[Caliban]

It fits the Core guidelines for the Bestow Curse spell perfectly

No reason you have to call it nausea though. Just say it's a curse that restricts you to move equivalent actions 50% of the time. No need to bring the nauseated condition into it. Following the core examples, nausea should require a fort save anyway.

I don't have any problem with a condition that affects undead/constructs and restricts them to move actions, as long as it isn't nausea.

Look up nauseated in the DMG.

DMG, Page 301, Nauseate: "Experiencing stomach distress. Nauseated creatures are unable to attack, cast spells, concentrate on spells, or do anyting else requiring attention. The only action such a character can take is a single move action per turn."

If you don't have a stomach, how can you experience stomach distress?

How is being "distracted" the same as experiencing stomach distress?

I await your next evasive answer.