Periapt of Cascading Health and Dazed

[Radiating Gnome]

Well, for the record I'm seeing the writing on the wall, but I'll keep playing my cards . .

A character is currently immobilized and slowed, separate effects that are both save ends. As a standard action, the PC makes an attack that grants him a saving throw. He succeeds against the immobilized condition.

Would you say he can't now use his move action to move two squares, because he started his turn immobilized?

No, I wouldn't. The actions clearly happen in a order, and if one action removes a condition that limited a later action, it only makes sense that the later action would not be affected by the removed condition.

But, I don't think that analogy is perfect. Consider this situation:

A PC is taking ongoing damage. On his turn, he takes his damage, then uses an action that removes that condition. Would you allow him to go back and restore the damage he took at the start of his turn?

Before you go too far insisting that this is a bogus analogy, consider that we can read Dazed as a sort of ongoing damage -- but instead of suffering the loss of hit points, the character is suffering the loss of actions. If you would not restore hit points lost at the start of a turn when the condition is removed, why would you restore lost actions?

-rg

 

[Obryn]

But, I don't think that analogy is perfect. Consider this situation:

A PC is taking ongoing damage. On his turn, he takes his damage, then uses an action that removes that condition. Would you allow him to go back and restore the damage he took at the start of his turn?

The main difference is that the Dazed condition doesn't make you lose your actions before the start of the turn - it just makes it so that, during your turn, you can only take 1 action. If that condition is removed during your turn, you are once again able to take the rest of your actions... Your turn isn't over. It's much like if you started your turn Immobilized but become re-mobilzied before the end of your turn.

Before you go too far insisting that this is a bogus analogy, consider that we can read Dazed as a sort of ongoing damage -- but instead of suffering the loss of hit points, the character is suffering the loss of actions. If you would not restore hit points lost at the start of a turn when the condition is removed, why would you restore lost actions?

I don't know why you'd choose to look at Dazed that way. In order for an analogy to be persuasive, you need to show why it's similar. And, in this case, I don't really see a good reason to treat the Dazed condition as ongoing damage, so it's not persuasive.

-O

 

[keterys]

Like I said in the other two posts... Dazed _could_ have been written such that it ate your other two actions or prevented you from getting those actions as available at the start of your turn.

It just wasn't.

Now, if you want to argue whether it might be a good rule for Dazed to work that way, that's a whole different topic. There are compelling arguments that can be made for both sides.

 

[Radiating Gnome]

Well, I'm still not 100% sold on this line of argument. Which is not to say I don't see the strength in what you're all saying, just that I'm not 100% satisfied. BUT I'm done debating it.

I wish I felt like it were clearer, but since I don't feel clear, and it's clearly better for game play if the DOES work as the player suggested and everyone (even Eric Noah's grandmother) agrees, I'm just going to play it that way (so it will work) from here on out and quietly wonder when exactly I turned into such a grumpy old bastard . . . .

 

[Radiating Gnome]

LOL. I'm going to beat CHZBRO to the punch . . . he just got a reply back from Wizards Customer Service, and forwarded the response to me. They're on his side, too.

Dang it. I really have become a crusty old bastard. Hats off to all of you, and thanks for putting so much effort into convincing me.

-j

PS. CHZBRO, you win this round, but I'm going to feed the dog Hormel Chili before our next game. Get ready for some REALLY heinous farts.

 

[Piratecat]

Someone has changed their mind after posting something on the internet? Holy cow. I respect you tremendously for managing to keep an open mind, and for admitting that you may have been mistaken.

 

[Chzbro]

First, let me say that all of your responses are greatly appreciated.

Next, you guys should feel free to be much meaner to Radiating Gnome in your posts; that guy spends 6 hours trying to kill me every other Sunday. You should hear him giggle when a character goes down (I kid, I kid).

I know it's to be taken with a grain of salt, but I did get some clarification from Customer Service today (query phrased similarly to original post):

Subject Dazed and Saving Throws Discussion Thread Response (Support Agent)06/01/2009 10:01 AM Bryan,

The player is correct. When your turn starts you do not do a check
to determine how many actions you get and that is all you get;
you get the 3 actions, and conditions limit their use. So when he
made his save, that freed up the use of the other actions, so he
should have been able to make a move and a standard action after
using the Periapt, but keep in mind that the DM may decide to
change the rules for use in their world.

Please let me know if you need anymore help!

After my DB Warlord has been pummeled soundly for his insolence 13 days hence, I'm going to try the "What would be more fun for ME?" arguement at the table.

I'll let you know how it goes...