Read what you wrote again. Nauseated restricts you to only a move action. Therefore, it already means you can't take any action that is not a move action._
only
[ohn-lee]adverb
1. without others or anything further; alone; solely; exclusively:
"This information is for your eyes only."
2. no more than; merely; just:
"If it were only true! I cook only on weekends."
3. as recently as:
"I read that article only yesterday."
4. in the final outcome or decision:
"You will only regret your harsh words to me."adjective
5. being the single one or the relatively few of the kind:
"This is the only pencil I can find."
6. having no sibling or no sibling of the same sex:
"an only child; an only son."
7. single in superiority or distinction; unique; the best:
"the one and only Muhammad Ali."conjunction
8. but (introducing a single restriction, restraining circumstance, or the like):
"I would have gone, only you objected."
9. Older Use. except; but:
"Only for him you would not be here."Idioms
10. only too,
a. as a matter of fact; extremely:
"I am only too glad to go."
b. unfortunately; very:
"It is only too likely to happen."
Context is important.
You only provoke attacks of opportunity when you begin casting a spell, even though you might continue casting for at least 1 full round.
Does this mean the only action that ever provokes an AoO is casting a spell? Of course not, because context is important.
In the context of a characters actions, the most common actions talked about and referenced are the move and standard actions. In the context of limiting a characters actions things only ever remove the standard action, the move action, or ALL of a characters actions (see unconscious). I realize that understanding this is inferred (which is why there is some confusion on it), but that comes back to understanding the context.
Above someone talked about (X or Y) vs (X) or (Y). In logical construction there really is no such thing as (X or Y). No matter where you place the parenthesis, if X is true, the entire statement is true, or if Y is true the entire statement is true.
The wordy version of restricted activity is:
"you are restricted to taking only a single standard action or you are restricted to taking only a single move action" but the language allows us to shorten that and still understand the meaning of it.
Example: If I say the grocery store will give a free gallon of milk to anyone that buys a gallon of orange juice or a gallon of apple juice they will get complaints if after they run out of orange juice they stop giving out milk with apple juice purchases.
If they wanted to limit it in that fashion they would need to say, anyone who orange juice or apple juice gets a free gallon of milk until we run out of either orange juice or apple juice. But that is no longer an X or Y scenario.
That becomes:
(X and A) or (Y and B) then Z
where
X equals buy orange juice
A equals we still have apple juice
Y equals buy apple juice
B equals we still have orange juice
Z equal free milk
Context is definitely important, because that's probably the sole reason why this sort of thing is still being argued. The problem is that there are two types of context that can be shown (though only one can be correct).
You're altering the meaning of the sentence by changing it like that. The thing is, if you parse it as (X + Y), as far as order of operations is concerned, you're left with an answer that requires the result being equal to X + Y, versus an equation that just has X or Y at any point in the equation. If it's the latter, then Nauseated can never fulfill it, because Nauseated can't ever have X. If it's the former, then that's still impossible because Nauseated doesn't match that equation, primarily because again, there is no X, only Y.
Because they aren't the same equation, you won't get the same answer. (Not unless X = 0, but unless the Devs throw us a "X + Y = Y" equation in regards to this, you couldn't possibly know what X equals unless there is another equation that is used to solve for X's value).
|
1. without others or anything further; alone; solely; exclusively:
Therefore, The only action such a character can take is a single move action per turn means a move action 'without any other actions' and 'without any further action types'. Solely, exclusively, a single move action per turn.
2. no more than; merely; just:
Therefore, 'no more (actions) than' a single action, 'just' a move action.
Cheers! : )
Context is definitely important, because that's probably the sole reason why this sort of thing is still being argued. The problem is that there are two types of context that can be shown (though only one can be correct).
You're altering the meaning of the sentence by changing it like that. The thing is, if you parse it as (X + Y), as far as order of operations is concerned, you're left with an answer that requires the result being equal to X + Y, versus an equation that just has X or Y at any point in the equation. If it's the latter, then Nauseated can never fulfill it, because Nauseated can't ever have X. If it's the former, then that's still impossible because Nauseated doesn't match that equation, primarily because again, there is no X, only Y.
Because they aren't the same equation, you won't get the same answer. (Not unless X = 0, but unless the Devs throw us a "X + Y = Y" equation in regards to this, you couldn't possibly know what X equals unless there is another equation that is used to solve for X's value).
I'm not changing the language. I'm reading it in the most plain and straight forward manner available. I gave an example where adding words makes explicitly clear the intent, those extra words are not necessary though to understand the meaning.
X + Y is not the same as X or Y. Mathematically, X + Y is the same as X and Y - assuming X and Y are even mathematical terms and can be added, which they aren't in this case.
X or Y is a boolean expression. Either the expression is true (the conditions are met) or it is false (the conditions are not met). In an 'or' expression, one or the other or both conditions must be true for the entire expression to yield true. This is the most common usage of the word 'or' in the language - to express alternatives, and I'd challenge you to find a suitable example in other writing that shows a usage of 'or' in such a manner as you believe this one to be (such an example might actually exist, I don't know, if you can find one then we can discuss further if this particular construct of the language is of like fashion).
You're altering the meaning of the sentence by changing it like that. The thing is, if you parse it as (X + Y), as far as order of operations is concerned, you're left with an answer that requires the result being equal to X + Y, versus an equation that just has X or Y at any point in the equation. If it's the latter, then Nauseated can never fulfill it, because Nauseated can't ever have X. If it's the former, then that's still impossible because Nauseated doesn't match that equation, primarily because again, there is no X, only Y.
Reading this again, I'm not sure if you were addressing this to my juice example, or something else, but I wanted to address this part specifically to the best of my understanding of what you are saying.
We are agreed that nauseated cannot fulfill the condition of X + Y.
e.g, if a rule stated that a player that had a standard action and move action available to them (X + Y) could do Z, then with nauseated that option is not available, because they do not have a standard (X).
It does however satisfy the X or Y condition.
e.g, if I have a standard action (X) or a move action (Y) available to me I can move my movement speed, or draw a weapon, etc. This is all restricted activity is defining - that the player must have either a standard action available (X) (which while nauseated they don't) or a move action available (Y) (which while nauseated they do) to get the benefits of free actions (Z).
|
Cheers! : )
or "2. no more than; merely; just" means: "The only action such a character can take is a single move actions per turn." & "In such cases, you are restricted to taking only a single standard action or a single move action (plus free and swift actions as normal)" & "You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally".
I'm still not trying to change your mind, and I'm still looking for constructive recommendations for resolving the paradoxes created by your interpretation in PFS...
|
|
Cheers! : )or "2. no more than; merely; just" means: "The only action such a character can take is a single move actions per turn." & "In such cases, you are restricted to taking only a single standard action or a single move action (plus free and swift actions as normal)" & "You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally".
I'm still not trying to change your mind, and I'm still looking for constructive recommendations for resolving the paradoxes created by your interpretation in PFS...
The 3.5 version, with its 'plus free actions' clause, demonstrates that without that clause then the rule would not let you take free actions.
The solution is to get Paizo to restore the original wording.
Restricted activity tells you what to do in a situation where you have one of your two main actions taken away, making it clear that your free and swift actions are not taken away.
It does not apply to situations where your free and swift actions are taken away, such as when the only action you can take is a single move action.
You're altering the meaning of the sentence by changing it like that. The thing is, if you parse it as (X + Y), as far as order of operations is concerned, you're left with an answer that requires the result being equal to X + Y, versus an equation that just has X or Y at any point in the equation. If it's the latter, then Nauseated can never fulfill it, because Nauseated can't ever have X. If it's the former, then that's still impossible because Nauseated doesn't match that equation, primarily because again, there is no X, only Y.Reading this again, I'm not sure if you were addressing this to my juice example, or something else, but I wanted to address this part specifically to the best of my understanding of what you are saying.
We are agreed that nauseated cannot fulfill the condition of X + Y.
e.g, if a rule stated that a player that had a standard action and move action available to them (X + Y) could do Z, then with nauseated that option is not available, because they do not have a standard (X).
It does however satisfy the X or Y condition.
e.g, if I have a standard action (X) or a move action (Y) available to me I can move my movement speed, or draw a weapon, etc. This is all restricted activity is defining - that the player must have either a standard action available (X) (which while nauseated they don't) or a move action available (Y) (which while nauseated they do) to get the benefits of free actions (Z).
It all boils down to what the base equation actually is, and whether the results must equal X, or Y, or if they must equal X (plus, minus, mutiplied by, divided by) Y. In that factor, it becomes a completely different number; AKA, the choice of being able to take one or the other, which Nauseated does not grant.
If we are to assume that X and Y are separate values (which they have to be, since they are treated as such both in the game and in the entry), the book doesn't parse whether the result of the equation, or even the contents of the equation for Restricted Activity must be Y, X, or a combination of X and Y using one of the operations above, and obviously, it can't be both, because then it leads to paradoxical results (such as Heisenberg's uncertainty principle). If the result only has to be one of the two variables, then your assumption would be correct. But when the wording is phrased in a manner that it is also a combination, then the actual answer is neither of the two variables, rather a result of taking the two variables in question and parsing them through an equation generated by the sentence structure.
To example this, let's take X = 7, and Y = 5. So if we parse that the answer for the equation in question is one of the two variables, like you claim, then the result from the conditions, or even the equation of the conditions must have either X (7) or Y (5), or have the result be X (7) or Y (5). But if the answer is a combination of the two variables, in any manner (such as X + Y, X - Y, X times Y, or X / Y), the result would then become 12, 2, 35, or 1.4 (depending on which operation you want to use), of which either variable, X, or Y, does not equal.
Now, the Nauseated condition equals Y, and only Y, whereas the Staggered condition equals a result of X and Y (that is, the result is equal to the operation given to X and Y as an equation). The rules then essentially state that if you have X (?) Y, the result then provides you with the number needed to solve for Z (AKA the misc. actions).
So if it is the former argument (result or equation must contain X or Y), then you have a case. If it's not, then the other side is true, because if the equation only results in X (?) Y, then you're only left with Y = Y, meaning you never get the result needed to solve for Z.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Never. Nauseated only allows move actions. You can use it to stagger away or you can use it to puke or you can use it to scream at your boyfriend who is patiently holding your hair out of your face. Nothing else.
When did Pathfinder rules require algebra to explain them, anyway?
Heh.
So which mathematical equation is equivalent to X or Y?
X + Y would be the sum, X and Y.
X * Y is a product, X times Y (or X, Y times).
X - Y would also be a sum, with Y negated first.
X / Y is also a product, with Y taken in the inverse first.
There is no mathematical equivalent of OR.
The only way to equate X or Y must match exactly X or Y is if you are doing a string comparison for equality. Computer science allows for string comparisons, and an English sentence could certainly be worded to denote string comparison, but the common every day usage of English with the word OR is not to make a string comparison. Propositional logic rules likewise would not write it as a simple OR - because a string comparison is not an OR condition, it is a equality check.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nope, screaming is a free action, not allowed.
You obviously haven't seen all the motion that goes into it. "Speaking is a free action" does not cover this particular process.
Is speaking to God on the Great White Telephone a free action?
|
|
Restricted activity tells you what to do in a situation where you have one of your two main actions taken away, making it clear that your free and swift actions are not taken away.
I agree with this statement 100%. Unfortunately, the meaning I got out of it is the opposite of what you meant to say: Restricted Activity tells you that even when your Standard Action is taken away you may still take free/swift actions.
It does not apply to situations where your free and swift actions are taken away, such as when the only action you can take is a single move action
Except you can take a free action as part of a move action.
The solution is to get Paizo to restore the original wording.
This doesn't help PFS now. The only common sense option is to take the logical reading.
The "restricted activity" find clinched this issue. Now the only thing left is a shouting match and a "quote the same thing 2,000 times and bold my favorite part" fight.
Stop it, guys. You're not discussing rules, you're saying "LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" on the forums.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The "restricted activity" find clinched this issue. Now the only thing left is a shouting match and a "quote the same thing 2,000 times and bold my favorite part" fight.
Stop it, guys. You're not discussing rules, you're saying "LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" on the forums.
You're right. It's just like watching a car wreck. I know I should stop replying - I'm just repeating myself. Saying the same thing over and over. Maybe I should just rename my avatar Mojo Jojo.
Sure, in some contexts and languages. To most people they mean addition and multiplication, which is how Darksol was actually using them in his post.
So, to preserve notation clarity, why not use OR to mean OR, especially since 'or' is what is used in the rules text?
Why doesn't "or" have just one single definition, or implication? Because the english language invented extra levels of complexity to help convey what something actually is. I mean, if there was only one meaning or one conclusion one could draw from the use of the word "or," this topic wouldn't have even happened.
But on to what your question is getting at: The reason why it's clunky with my example is primarily because "or" doesn't really have mathematical implications, except to determine if the result is X, Y, or an amalgamation of them. (Additionally, I don't recall initially bringing math into this, merely expanding upon someone who tried to.) Outside that, it's not directly present in equations.
At any rate, Game Master summed it all up. The Restricted Activity entry is unclear as to its actual meaning, and therefore we will never know until the Devs clarify what that meaning is. Now I'll take a bow on this topic, only watching to see if the Devs decide to answer it, and this will be my last post.
For real this time.
Is speaking to God on the Great White Telephone a free action?
Not if the Great White Telephone is a material component, or focus, for a Contact Other Plane spell.
You can use it to stagger away or you can use it to puke or you can use it to scream at your boyfriend who is patiently holding your hair out of your face.
I think we both know what my response is going to be: next time the condition comes up during the game, we will need to pause so I can comprehensively expound upon the nuances of the rules in question.
It's only reasonable.
|
|
People are reading way too much into things. There is such a clear wording. You can only do a move action. full stop. It is a powerful condition. No ambiguity, no grey area.
_
If there is no ambiguity, please explain why (if Nauseated prevents Free Actions but not Move Actions) we can:Please clarify why when we add in class features, feats, items (like the spring loaded wrist sheath or the quickdraw shield) the list of paradoxes continues to grow?
|
|
People are reading way too much into things. There is such a clear wording. You can only do a move action. full stop. It is a powerful condition. No ambiguity, no grey area._
If there is no ambiguity, please explain why (if Nauseated prevents Free Actions but not Move Actions) we can:Mount/dismount a steed, Move ~20', climb a rope, swim, jump a gap, and stand up from prone . . . but not fall down?
Draw/sheathe a sword, load a (small) crossbow, move a heavy object, pick up a sword, ready/drop a shield . . . but not drop a sword? Please clarify why when we add in class features, feats, items (like the spring loaded wrist sheath or the quickdraw shield) the list of paradoxes continues to grow?
I can explain! : )
It's simply because Paizo forgot the line about free actions (but not quickened spells, which are what became swift actions) still being allowed, when they cut&paste the rule from the 3.5 PHB.
It really is as simple as that, and the goal here should be to restore that line, not create an artificial connection between the Nauseated condition and a paragraph explaining what you can do when a situation limits you to a choice between a standard and a move instead of the usual situation where you get both.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
People are reading way too much into things. There is such a clear wording. You can only do a move action. full stop. It is a powerful condition. No ambiguity, no grey area._
If there is no ambiguity, please explain why (if Nauseated prevents Free Actions but not Move Actions) we can:Mount/dismount a steed, Move ~20', climb a rope, swim, jump a gap, and stand up from prone . . . but not fall down?
Draw/sheathe a sword, load a (small) crossbow, move a heavy object, pick up a sword, ready/drop a shield . . . but not drop a sword? Please clarify why when we add in class features, feats, items (like the spring loaded wrist sheath or the quickdraw shield) the list of paradoxes continues to grow?
I can explain! : )
It's simply because Paizo forgot the line about free actions (but not quickened spells, which are what became swift actions) still being allowed, when they cut&paste the rule from the 3.5 PHB.
It really is as simple as that, and the goal here should be to restore that line, not create an artificial connection between the Nauseated condition and a paragraph explaining what you can do when a situation limits you to a choice between a standard and a move instead of the usual situation where you get both.
I agree. While I applaud several of the people on this thread for trying to figure out a rules interpretation that allows for swift/free actions while nauseated, I don't think the text bears that out. The condition says you get only a move action. The condition, being "more specific", trumps the general rules for restricted actions. Therefore, you end up with weird paradoxes like being able to draw a sword but not drop it.
I think this is a clear case of RAW vs. RAI. Or perhaps just RAW vs. common sense. The text of the rule seems pretty clear to me; you have to jump through a bunch of hoops to get it to agree with a common-sense interpretation. Therefore, the paradox should be resolved by FAQing the original rule to allow for additional actions.
Personally, I'd go for something like this:
Creatures with the nauseated condition experience stomach distress. Nauseated creatures are unable to attack, cast spells, concentrate on spells, or do anything else requiring attention. Such a character can only take a single move action per turn, plus swift and/or free actions that do not require concentration (subject to GM interpretation).
Probably too wordy and leaving too much to GM interpretation for most folks, but that would be how I'd run it at my table.
Given that swift and free actions were integrated into other actions to begin with, it didn't actually strike me as a big hoop to jump through. It's just maintaining the normal situation, where you take your free actions as part of taking the move action. You wouldn't have taken a free action as an action in its own right, even if you weren't nauseated.
But using the other interpretation, heh, maybe we can trap a Nauseated spellcaster in a paradoxical loop where he can neither concentrate on his spell (standard action) or stop concentrating on his spell (free action). That's mildly amusing. ;)
Maybe Paizo didn't want Bards to maintain their Bardic Performance while nauseated, although it would have been much better to explicitly say so.
But I really shouldn't reply to this subject, this whole thing is just silly. I only did because I thought it was relevant information, but I do so in contempt!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, this is still a thing. Crazy, huh?
So just out of curiosity (read: masochism), other than
1) acting in the surprise round
2) the staggered condition, and
3) the nauseated conditionwhat else falls under the "Restricted Activity" guidelines? I can't think of any situations other than those three, but it is COMPLETELY plausible that I'm wrong (It's happened once or twice before...)
Disabled: A character with 0 hit points, or one who has negative hit points but has become stable and conscious, is disabled. A disabled character may take a single move action or standard action each round (but not both, nor can he take full-round actions, but he can still take swift, immediate, and free actions). He moves at half speed. Taking move actions doesn't risk further injury, but performing any standard action (or any other action the GM deems strenuous, including some free actions such as casting a quickened spell) deals 1 point of damage after the completion of the act. Unless the action increased the disabled character's hit points, he is now in negative hit points and dying.
People are reading way too much into things. There is such a clear wording. You can only do a move action. full stop. It is a powerful condition. No ambiguity, no grey area._
If there is no ambiguity, please explain why (if Nauseated prevents Free Actions but not Move Actions) we can:Mount/dismount a steed, Move ~20', climb a rope, swim, jump a gap, and stand up from prone . . . but not fall down?
Draw/sheathe a sword, load a (small) crossbow, move a heavy object, pick up a sword, ready/drop a shield . . . but not drop a sword? Please clarify why when we add in class features, feats, items (like the spring loaded wrist sheath or the quickdraw shield) the list of paradoxes continues to grow?
I can explain! : )
It's simply because Paizo forgot the line about free actions (but not quickened spells, which are what became swift actions) still being allowed, when they cut&paste the rule from the 3.5 PHB.
It really is as simple as that, and the goal here should be to restore that line, not create an artificial connection between the Nauseated condition and a paragraph explaining what you can do when a situation limits you to a choice between a standard and a move instead of the usual situation where you get both.
Or we could stop treating the rules like a legal text and assume that paradoxical rules interpretations are invalid.
Or we could admit that the world "only" can have multiple meanings.
Just saying.
Maybe Paizo didn't want Bards to maintain their Bardic Performance while nauseated, although it would have been much better to explicitly say so.
But I really shouldn't reply to this subject, this whole thing is just silly. I only did because I thought it was relevant information, but I do so in contempt!
Bardic performance likely falls under the "do anything else requiring attention" clause.
It says a single move action only. And talking is a free action. So no talking.
Correct. You are puking your guts out, or fighting to prevent it.
"Nauseated
Creatures with the nauseated condition experience stomach distress. Nauseated creatures are unable to attack, cast spells, concentrate on spells, or do anything else requiring attention. The only action such a character can take is a single move action per turn."
...anything else requiring attention...
anything else requiring attention...
attention...
You aren't allowed to take whatever move action you want, you are allowed to have a single move action, with even MORE restrictions on it!
Mounting a horse? No way!
Climb a rope? HAH! No!
Jump a gap? nuh uh.
Load a weapon? Hah!
You can move a bit... I might even argue you couldn't handle difficult terrain... clearly, being nauseated sucks.
Are you helpless? Almost. Damn.
Good thing they didn't petrify you or hit you with a death effect, THAT would suck.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Breathing requires attention, therefore you can't breathe, you suffocate.
Or you could realize that attention refers to things that actually require concentration, like casting spells, and not stuff that doesn't, like mounting horses.
It's like people don't even know what the word nauseated means. It DOES NOT mean you are in the act of puking. FFS, the Pathfinder description spells it out for you, 'stomach distress'. Heck, I get that every time I fly, and I don't end up in the aisle in a fetal position.
You are not helpless. Nor do you take a penalty on your AC, nor do you even lose your DEX to AC.
So, how the hell does that square with being 'almost helpless'?
According to some people in this thread, you CAN'T end up in the fetal position while Nauseated.
According to some people in this thread, you CAN'T end up in the fetal position while Nauseated.Breathing requires attention, therefore you can't breathe, you suffocate.
Or you could realize that attention refers to things that actually require concentration, like casting spells, and not stuff that doesn't, like mounting horses.
It's like people don't even know what the word nauseated means. It DOES NOT mean you are in the act of puking. FFS, the Pathfinder description spells it out for you, 'stomach distress'. Heck, I get that every time I fly, and I don't end up in the aisle in a fetal position.
You are not helpless. Nor do you take a penalty on your AC, nor do you even lose your DEX to AC.
So, how the hell does that square with being 'almost helpless'?
Of course not. That would take concentration :).
It should also be noted that barbarians, while raging, cannot talk, climb, swim, open doors, etc. as raging also prohibits anything requiring concentration.
And for even more fun, you could load a crossbow (move action) but could not draw the ammunition to do so (free action).
Here's a good one: a nauseated barbarian can't stop raging. Talk about being so angry you could puke...
RAI, logic, and sanity say "Yes, of course you can take free and swift actions while nauseated. All the abusive uses of this, such as casting a quickened spell, are already blocked by other, specific restrictions on actions while nauseated."
RAW, in this case, actually happens to agree, as the rules of the game define what happens when your actions are restricted - including explicitly calling out that free and swift actions are allowed.
The only argument to the contrary is "But if you look at the nauseated condition, and ignore all other rules, rulings, and rulebooks, it looks like you can't do anything at all!"
Since one of the sides of this argument is looking at one rule and ignoring the others, and the other side is looking at all of the rules and applying the relevant rules found elsewhere, it's pretty clear-cut who's in the wrong here.
You're at a pizza party. The host says "Due to a limited amount of pizza, you're only allowed 2 slices."
I think we all agree that you're not allowed to take 3 slices. The rule by the host definitely prohibits that.
Can you take only 1 slice though?
Yes, but you're not allowed to drink anything.
You're at a pizza party. The host says "Due to a limited amount of pizza, you're only allowed 2 slices."
I think we all agree that you're not allowed to take 3 slices. The rule by the host definitely prohibits that.
Can you take only 1 slice though?
Not a bad analogy. The host also sent out an email before the party that says "You're also allowed to have a drink." That email isn't posted on the wall or anything, but everyone got the email, and shouldn't tell their friends "The host never said we could have a drink! Put that glass back."