Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Radiating Gnome" data-source="post: 4810253" data-attributes="member: 150">Well, Dog Farts.  In the interest of full disclosure, I'm the DM in question, but our group has two DMs and we were both of the same mind in this instance.  I'm going to present my case because I'm not real good at backing down in the face of such overwhelming opposition . . . or because I'm just a pain in the rear.  IMO, the rules are very unclear, but I ruled the way I did and defended it based on the idea that the available actions are issued to the player at a specific moment in his turn -- after the "beginning of your turn", and right at the moment the player starts to take actions.  In the beginning of your turn, according to the PHB, you take ongoing damage, conditions that end at the beginning of your turn end, and other administrative things happen.  And, in the case of the Warden, the PC get to make a save against ongoing conditions before they affect him for the round.  Then the player actually takes his turn, and is issued his actions.  Standard, Move, Minor for most, but just a single standard action for a dazed character.  The Dazed character in this case takes his action, and uses his periapt to remove the dazed condition.  But he's already missed this (albeit imaginary) moment at the start of his turn when those actions were issued, so he doesn't retroactively get those actions that his dazed condition robbed him of.  I see this as essentially differen from the warden, since the warden's ability happens during the beginning of the player's turn, a very clearly defined sub-portion of the player's turn that takes place before the player takes (or is granted) his actions.  Frankly, the best argument I've seen so far in this thread, IMO, is Piratecat's -- what's the most fun for the player.  That one, hands down, has me ready to drop the whole issue.  I would agree that the periapt is of limited use when trying to remove a dazed condition -- excpept that it would guarantee success, rather than relying on a save.  But in other cases, it's just as valuable as it always has been.  A minor action, taken before a move action, could remove a slowed or immobilized condition and allow the PC to move freely with the subsequent move action.  I'm totally out on a limb here, and I know it.  I'm constructing the idea of a moment at the start of the player's turn when actions are dealt out like cards to a poker player.  That's not in the rules, but there's nothing in the rules I've seen that describes how those actions are granted.  My own rubric for trying to sort out rules readings, has always been "What's simpler."  It seems like when there are interpretatiosn that bump into each other, the designers usually end up on the side of the one that is easiest to handle.  With that in mind . . . my own interpretation seems easiest.  You're Dazed.  You get one Action.  You spend that action with the periapt to removed the dazed condition.  That's your turn.  Simple.  Adding complexity to it by allowing that to restore lost actions doesn't ring true to me.  When I start trying to defend it in more detail, that's when I start to make it confusing with questions about when actions are awarded and how . . . Anyway  . . . like I said, I'm very much surprised that there was so much support for one reading and none for mine . . . . but the "what's more fun" angle really does seem to tip the balance.  Of course . . . can you imagine the player trying to debate this at the table with me?  Player: "I should get my other two actions now, right?"DM: "That's now how it works.  Nope, you're done."Player: "But . . . it would be more fun if I did <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />"DM: "Hmmm.  You're right . . . ."   I find it persuasive away from the table, but somehow at the table I have a hard time imagining being able to accept that as an argument in the heat of the moment.  <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    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />-rg</blockquote>

Verification