Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Dazzed until grabbed?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Journeymanmage" data-source="post: 4585739" data-attributes="member: 63814"><p>You said:</p><p></p><p> Quote:</p><p> Done. Clearly and to the point.</p><p></p><p>Quote:</p><p> 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...."</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>As to:</p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>GoLu at least provides an opinion as to why something may or may not work the way as presented.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>End turn of Mr. Cube, move to next initiative:</p><p></p><p>Bob goes next. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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)</p><p>"The Start of Your Turn"</p><p> -"Before you act, you keep track of certain effects. ..."</p><p></p><p>Ongoing Damage: Bob takes 10 Acid damage.</p><p>...</p><p>Other Effects: ***</p><p>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. "</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>To GoLu:</p><p>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 <strong>Other Effects</strong> 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. </p><p>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: </p><p><strong>Your Actions:</strong> You get the following three actions on your turn.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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." </p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>DracoSauve stated:</p><p>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".</p><p></p><p>------</p><p>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. </p><p></p><p></p><p>As to McMurray, you don't support your point of view, you claimed</p><p>That was proven wrong.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Did it, you just didn't seem to like hearing it.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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....</p><p></p><p>That seems to come off as a snide comment. During this thread "at least" I brought something, besides "you can't prove it" (Proved).</p><p>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?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Journeymanmage, post: 4585739, member: 63814"] 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 [B]Other Effects[/B] 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: [B]Your Actions:[/B] 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? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Dazzed until grabbed?
Top