Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Journeymanmage" data-source="post: 4584808" data-attributes="member: 63814">*(note: comments are meant in a neutral / friendly tone.&nbsp; we're talking about a game <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />&nbsp; ) Does not need to do so ....The &quot;Start of your turn&quot; is &quot;the start of your turn&quot;.&nbsp; Reviewing what effects your character are under is part of what you do at the start of your turn.&nbsp; At the start of &quot;Bob's&quot; turn he is engulfed by Mr. Cube ... resolving the engulfed effect leads to ... Bob will be Dazed (and suffering from acid) this turn.&nbsp; The Dazed condition has an impact on the character later in his turn. (see: &quot;Phase 2&quot;: Actions on your turn.)Yes, which is why I mentioned the:&quot;Start of Your Turn&quot;: Ongoing Damage vs Regeneration thread, I'm &gt;assuming&lt; that's what your mentioning.&nbsp; (I don't have the search feature either)I don't know if I'd call quoting directly from the rule book as circumstantial evidence, unless you are looking for the book to explicitly spell out every case of &quot;If you are &lt;fill in effect&gt; and you (do / don't do) the following ... etc..&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; It was a point-by-point following of the RAW.&nbsp; Trying to imply that just because something is not explicitly spelled out in part of the rules is not the best defense.&nbsp; (nowhere in the rules does it say &quot;Don't Cheat&quot; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> )I agree that for the players it is more fun (or I hope it is) to let them use an AP to break free and give them a full set of actions.&nbsp; I even did so when the party came to this encounter.&nbsp; I even said: &quot;Now as a GM I don't have an issue playing it as Use an AP, escape (if skilled/lucky), then resolve Dazed and give Bob his full allotment of actions. But that's an opinion / personal GM style choice.&quot;But they do.&nbsp; And strongly so, compared to: implying that because the rules don't spell out every possible option / effect / scenario, to the last detail, that &quot;it's not covered&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Journeymanmage, post: 4584808, member: 63814"] *(note: comments are meant in a neutral / friendly tone. we're talking about a game ;) ) Does not need to do so .... The "Start of your turn" is [I]"the start of your turn".[/I] Reviewing what effects your character are under is part of what you do at the start of your turn. At the start of "Bob's" turn he is engulfed by Mr. Cube ... resolving the engulfed effect leads to ... Bob will be Dazed (and suffering from acid) this turn. The Dazed condition has an impact on the character later in his turn. (see: "Phase 2": Actions on your turn.) Yes, which is why I mentioned the: "Start of Your Turn": Ongoing Damage vs Regeneration thread, I'm >assuming< that's what your mentioning. (I don't have the search feature either) I don't know if I'd call quoting directly from the rule book as circumstantial evidence, unless you are looking for the book to explicitly spell out every case of "If you are <fill in effect> and you (do / don't do) the following ... etc.." It was a point-by-point following of the RAW. Trying to imply that just because something is not explicitly spelled out in part of the rules is not the best defense. (nowhere in the rules does it say "Don't Cheat" ;) ) I agree that for the players it is more fun (or I hope it is) to let them use an AP to break free and give them a full set of actions. I even did so when the party came to this encounter. I even said: "Now as a GM I don't have an issue playing it as Use an AP, escape (if skilled/lucky), then resolve Dazed and give Bob his full allotment of actions. But that's an opinion / personal GM style choice." But they do. And strongly so, compared to: implying that because the rules don't spell out every possible option / effect / scenario, to the last detail, that "it's not covered". [/QUOTE]

Verification