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="DracoSuave" data-source="post: 4586536" data-attributes="member: 71571"><p>And it is also clear that not being dazed does not imply that you only take one action. Being dazed is not the same as not being dazed. I thought that would be obvious. The semantics of being dazed are a limitation on what actions you -can take- not on what actions -you get-. Therefore, if you lift the limitation, it no longer applies. The semantics of dazed -MEANS THE WORDING.- That's what semantics IS.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Because it is worded the same way as dazed. If -that- is a restriction, then dazed which uses the -same- wording is also a restriction that works similiarly.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You get one immediate action per round. Things like that 'recharge' at the beginning of your turn, if they work through a recharging mechanism. If actions recharge at the beginning of your turn, immediate actions, which ARE an action, would recharge with the -rest- of your actions. Therefore, dazed, BY YOUR INTERPRETATION, would deny them. Opportunity actions don't work that way because they don't recharge per round, but per turn.</p><p></p><p>This is just your model of how actions work applied here. That's the point of the argument.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The way you interpret it, by your own admission above, ignores the wording of it for some imagined 'semantics' of how the power works, which as you stated above, doesn't involve the wording of it, and as I have proven above, is not consistant through the various effects of the condition. Mine is consistant throughout the entire condition, works -as written- exactly, and doesn't contradict existing rules.</p><p></p><p>My interpretation then, being the simpler one, by Occum's Razor, is more likely to be correct.</p><p></p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>Movement, unfortunately, is on a per-square basis, not declared in wholeness at the beginning. If you have your slow removed, your speed is 6. The walk action says 'move a number of squares up to your speed.' Once your speed becomes 6, you have not yet moved a number of squares up to your speed. This, of course, is if you had it removed on the first square. On the second square, you'd have moved a number of squares up to your speed, so the action is completed before the immediate reaction of the readied action can take place.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And that is under dispute. Dazed does not mention 'at the beginning of your turn' or in any other way indicate the beginning of your turn, so triggered effects are not the same thing as it. If it said 'at the beginning of your turn', you'd have a point. It is -not- analogous, and the argument you craft from it is circular.</p><p></p><p>'Dazed works at the beginning of your turn, therefore it is like ongoing damage. Because it is like ongoing damage, it works at the beginning of your turn.'</p><p></p><p>That's why it is irrelevent, because to make it relevant, it must involve assumptions not in evidence, and assumes the truth value of a premise that has yet to be proven to be true.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>But that is -only- if you accept the -assumption- that dazed is the permanent loss of some resource, rather than, as it is -stated in the damn book-, a restriction on how you may spend that resource. I would agree with you, if the wording on dazed were something else entirely. But it is not, and it does not work the way you describe on the entirety of actions that it restricts.</p><p></p><p>If you get dazed during your turn, you do not get to take more actions than you've already taken right? That means that dazed is not something that applies at the beginning of your turn, but is rather a continuous effect that restricts your options, rather than one that 'damages' your resources.</p><p></p><p>If it worked like ongoing damage, then if you got an effect that gave you ongoing damage 10, you'd take that damage immediately, by the same logic that gives you your conclusion for dazed. This does not happen, therefore your argument has an inherent flaw somewhere in it.</p><p></p><p>You cannot have your cake and eat it too, unless the condition states otherwise. (It does not.)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="DracoSuave, post: 4586536, member: 71571"] And it is also clear that not being dazed does not imply that you only take one action. Being dazed is not the same as not being dazed. I thought that would be obvious. The semantics of being dazed are a limitation on what actions you -can take- not on what actions -you get-. Therefore, if you lift the limitation, it no longer applies. The semantics of dazed -MEANS THE WORDING.- That's what semantics IS. Because it is worded the same way as dazed. If -that- is a restriction, then dazed which uses the -same- wording is also a restriction that works similiarly. You get one immediate action per round. Things like that 'recharge' at the beginning of your turn, if they work through a recharging mechanism. If actions recharge at the beginning of your turn, immediate actions, which ARE an action, would recharge with the -rest- of your actions. Therefore, dazed, BY YOUR INTERPRETATION, would deny them. Opportunity actions don't work that way because they don't recharge per round, but per turn. This is just your model of how actions work applied here. That's the point of the argument. The way you interpret it, by your own admission above, ignores the wording of it for some imagined 'semantics' of how the power works, which as you stated above, doesn't involve the wording of it, and as I have proven above, is not consistant through the various effects of the condition. Mine is consistant throughout the entire condition, works -as written- exactly, and doesn't contradict existing rules. My interpretation then, being the simpler one, by Occum's Razor, is more likely to be correct. Movement, unfortunately, is on a per-square basis, not declared in wholeness at the beginning. If you have your slow removed, your speed is 6. The walk action says 'move a number of squares up to your speed.' Once your speed becomes 6, you have not yet moved a number of squares up to your speed. This, of course, is if you had it removed on the first square. On the second square, you'd have moved a number of squares up to your speed, so the action is completed before the immediate reaction of the readied action can take place. And that is under dispute. Dazed does not mention 'at the beginning of your turn' or in any other way indicate the beginning of your turn, so triggered effects are not the same thing as it. If it said 'at the beginning of your turn', you'd have a point. It is -not- analogous, and the argument you craft from it is circular. 'Dazed works at the beginning of your turn, therefore it is like ongoing damage. Because it is like ongoing damage, it works at the beginning of your turn.' That's why it is irrelevent, because to make it relevant, it must involve assumptions not in evidence, and assumes the truth value of a premise that has yet to be proven to be true. But that is -only- if you accept the -assumption- that dazed is the permanent loss of some resource, rather than, as it is -stated in the damn book-, a restriction on how you may spend that resource. I would agree with you, if the wording on dazed were something else entirely. But it is not, and it does not work the way you describe on the entirety of actions that it restricts. If you get dazed during your turn, you do not get to take more actions than you've already taken right? That means that dazed is not something that applies at the beginning of your turn, but is rather a continuous effect that restricts your options, rather than one that 'damages' your resources. If it worked like ongoing damage, then if you got an effect that gave you ongoing damage 10, you'd take that damage immediately, by the same logic that gives you your conclusion for dazed. This does not happen, therefore your argument has an inherent flaw somewhere in it. You cannot have your cake and eat it too, unless the condition states otherwise. (It does not.) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Dazzed until grabbed?
Top