Dazzed until grabbed?

[Nail]

FWIW, I think Journeymanmage has the right of it. He's laid out his case pretty darn clearly:

At the start of the turn you apply the dazed condition. The dazed condition allows you only one (non-free) action. You don't get those lost actions back if - during your turn - you are able to remove the dazed condition.

Seems very simple.

 

[Gruns]

Confusing...

( SNIP)
an immediate action daze wouldn't be that impressive because the target could still take their full set of three actions even though dazed.

Why would you even consider this? Dazed clearly says you can only take one of the three actions. If your action is the one that triggered the daze, and you become Dazed, you're done.(Action Points aside) This is pretty simple and easy.
Like I said way back when this post was started, this is not specifically spelled out in the PHB, but there are a lot of situations that aren't spelled out. Slow, however, does spell out what happens when you become Slowed while moving. As Dazed and Slow are both conditions that limit what you can do somehow (by about a third, coincidently), I think the comparision is a good one. I suppose this brings up the question about what happens if you're Slowed at the beginning of your turn, and Save against it somehow during your Standard action, ending the Slowed condition. Here, unlike the Dazed situation, I'd allow the full 6 squares(or whatever their normal speed is) as your legs now work just fine.
I find it odd that this question is causing so much confusion. The exact situation came up with my group. The person used their one action to try to escape from the Cube, and succeeded. No one even considered that they should then get their remaining two actions since they were no longer Dazed. I guess we all looked at it logically and visualized the PC staggering out of the ooze, covered in well, more ooze, gasping for breath and trying to find their bearings. You Escape! Next player's turn...
Later!
Gruns

 

[GoLu]

Why would you even consider this? Dazed clearly says you can only take one of the three actions.

Because of all the attention on whether you were dazed at the start of your turn. If the claim is made that you are allocated your three actions at the start of the turn, and daze drops those three down to one, then your number of actions you get would be based on whether you were dazed at the start of the turn.

That's pretty much why I feel it's more natural to interpret the dazed condition as a limit on how you can spend actions rather than on how many actions you have. Less weird stuff happens that way, and you don't need to treat conditions differently.

(Also, it's fairly easy to invent flavor text to match the rules. If you lose your actions, you stagger free half-blind and out of breath. If you don't, you squirm free and stagger backwards towards your allies, gasping a quick prayer for Bahamut to see you through this fight. Neither is more appropriate than the other when judged from that angle.)

 

[DracoSuave]

Besides, -as written-, dazed is written like a restriction on how to spend actions, not as a change in how many actions you recieve.

By your interpretations, it also means if you have daze lifted off your turn you wouldn't get your immediate action back. (opportunity actions recharge every turn, tho, so you'd be fine) Why? Because that restriction is written -exactly the same way.- Therefore it is reasonable to rule that it -works- exactly the same way.

It's semantics, but in the end you ask the question 'Which is more fun, having a condition work even after deactivated, or having it so the choice to undo the condition results in freedom from that condition?'

In otherwords, is it more fun to allow players (and monsters) the chance to free themselves and have -that- be meaningful immediately, or is it more fun to have the player -remain obstensively dazed- until the start of their next turn?

If I were knocked prone, and I did an action to stand up, I did an action that removes that condition. If the DM said 'No, you're still suffering the prone penalties' after I -undid the condition- I'd probably accuse him of being some form of idiot. Same as if I were bloodied and someone healed me. If the DM said 'Well this OA against you does extra damage cause you were bloodied at the beginning of your turn.' That's DM Dickery and nothing more.

Essentially, that's the question. If you lift dazed, the only benefit they get until the beginning of their turn, as you guys are arguing, is that they don't grant combat advantage. Yet, they still lose a large heap of actions to a condition -they no longer suffer from.- That's not fun, guys. That's not even fair. That IS DM Dickery, and nothing more.

It's more tactical and more fun for -both sides- to allow effects that lift conditions to -actually lift the condition- and it makes more sense that way. It is more intuitive.

It's the way the semantics of the rules work, and it's the way the -spirit- of 4e rules work.

 

[Nail]

is it more fun to allow players (and monsters) the chance to free themselves and have -that- be meaningful immediately, or is it more fun to have the player -remain obstensively dazed- until the start of their next turn?

Essentially, that's the question.

Uhm, ....huh?

The question is: "If you are dazed at the start of your turn, and then do something during your turn that removes the dazed condition, do you get any actions back?"

The question "Which rules interpretation is more fun?" is best left to individual games, nicht wahr?

 

[DracoSuave]

You should read the entire post then.

By your interpretations, it also means if you have daze lifted off your turn you wouldn't get your immediate action back. (opportunity actions recharge every turn, tho, so you'd be fine) Why? Because that restriction is written -exactly the same way.- Therefore it is reasonable to rule that it -works- exactly the same way.

The rest is a different argument presented. Hand wave it away as you like, it is still just as relevant, as it is of the form: Lifting a condition results in freedom from that condition. As you argue it, lifting daze does not result in freedom from dazed. Therefore there is a contradiction.

 

[Gruns]

Well...

Because of all the attention on whether you were dazed at the start of your turn. If the claim is made that you are allocated your three actions at the start of the turn, and daze drops those three down to one, then your number of actions you get would be based on whether you were dazed at the start of the turn.

Actually the claim was made that you are allotted three actions "on your turn", not at the beginning. (PHB268-269) Regardless, the real point was that if at any time Dazed enters the picture, two of those actions are gone. I'd bet that Dazed originally said "You get only 1 Action on your turn" but Free Actions screwed with this, so they used the wording that is used now.

That's pretty much why I feel it's more natural to interpret the dazed condition as a limit on how you can spend actions rather than on how many actions you have.

But... Daze DOES limit how many actions you have and does NOT limit how you can spend an action... If Dazed said "You can only spend Standard Actions to make Melee Basic Attacks" then that would be limiting how you can spend your actions...

Less weird stuff happens that way, and you don't need to treat conditions differently.

Dazed and Slowed are the only two conditions that let you do something, but limit the amount of that "something" you get. (Actions, and Movement Squares) Therefore you're right: we shouldn't treat them differently. The "Slowed during move" rule from the PHB should apply to "Dazed during turn".
Later!
Gruns

 

[Gruns]

Hmm...

Lifting a condition results in freedom from that condition. As you argue it, lifting daze does not result in freedom from dazed. Therefore there is a contradiction.

No, your interpretation of Dazed is what causes the percieved contradiction. The problem here is that I and a few others see Dazed as actively doing something- taking away actions. Not simply filtering what is available as you seem to think. From our point of view, you are freed from being Dazed as soon as it's lifted (You no longer grant Combat Advantage because of it, and can now once again flank) but as for the actions, the damage has already been done. They have been sucked into the cube and are lost forever. You don't get them back.
You don't think that you regain lost hit points when you finally save from "Ongoing Fire 10" do you? Of course not. The same principle applies to the Dazed condition. Unless of course you choose to think that being Dazed doesn't make you lose actions. And I know you don't think it does. Thus, the reason you think there is a contradiction. Luckily for me, everyone in my group saw it the same exact way that I see it, and we got past the cube encounter without a second thought about getting actions back after becoming un-Dazed.
Later!
Gruns

 

[DracoSuave]

If Daze affected how much you got, it would say 'You get _______'. It doesn't. It says 'You can only take _____.'

If it was worded 'You may only take Minor Actions on your turn' would that be a restriction on how you spent actions?

And -do- consider the second part of it, which uses the same verb to say you can't use immediate actions. If dazed is lifted, -by your logic- you don't get to use those either (as those are recharged at the beginning of your turn.)

In other words, ending dazed under your logic does -not- in fact lift dazed. If I were slowed, and it were lifted by an action in the middle of my move (a readied action, let's say) then I -would- get the full benefit of my speed. So if you treat it like slowed, then you -must- treat dazed the same way and give them the full benefit of their actions.

 

[DracoSuave]

You don't think that you regain lost hit points when you finally save from "Ongoing Fire 10" do you? Of course not.

This is an irrelevent argument. Ongoing damage doesn't take place nor affect the middle of your turn, so it isn't a parallel case. If you had an effect that removed ongoing damage at the beginning of your turn, perhaps you might have a point.