Community

Oct 15, 2009 -- 2:52PM, Suoitidure wrote:

It has been suggested in this thread, but I am still not convinced that spending an action point raises your "normal" limit (as there is none).

Would you also contend that other abilities & powers that give you extra actions* would be similarly useless when dazed?

* Examples: Commander's Strike, Time Stop, Legendmaker Armor, Baldric of Time, Deluvian Hourglass, Haste Sigil, Steal Time, Unerring Foreknowledge, Invoke Heroism, Inspired Solutions, Cyclops Rambler's Alacrity, Griffon's Blood Frenzy, Reborn Champion's Legendary Action, etc.

Oct 15, 2009 -- 2:37PM, Suoitidure wrote:

Oct 15, 2009 -- 2:32PM, mvincent wrote:

Oct 15, 2009 -- 2:19PM, Dirge-Overdrive wrote:

The basic rules limit a character to 3 actions on their turn.

The daze rule limit a character to 1 action on their turn.

So if the daze rule prevents extra actions, why doesn't the basic rule?

This (and the previous posts) seem to make an excellent point. Is there enough concensus to add this to the FAQ?

There is no limit placed on a normal turn.

If "On your turn, you take actions: a standard action, a move action, a minor action, and any number of free actions, in any order you wish." is taken as a restriction then 1) You cannot trade down action types, 2) you have to use all of your actions before your turn is considered over; also the specific rule for standard action says "You can normally take one standard action on your turn."

I used that quote because it was in sentence form.  It limits what you can do on your turn, but doesn't force you use all three, and is still modified by the rules around it concerning swapping actions.

I can instead use the Actions on your Turn section:

You get the following three actions on your turn:
Standard Action
Move Action
Minor Action

This still limits what you can do on your turn.  It too does not force you to take all three actions and allows you to swap out standards for moves, etc.

Without spending an action point and absent other benefits:
Can you take two standards actions on your turn?
Can you take 3 move actions on your turn?
No, because the rules limit what you can do on your turn.

Oct 15, 2009 -- 2:37PM, Suoitidure wrote:

  also the specific rule for standard action says "You can normally take one standard action on your turn."

And?  How does this affect the discussion?  

Oct 15, 2009 -- 2:57PM, mvincent wrote:

Oct 15, 2009 -- 2:52PM, Suoitidure wrote:

It has been suggested in this thread, but I am still not convinced that spending an action point raises your "normal" limit (as there is none).

Would you also contend that other abilities & powers that give you extra actions (like commander's strike and such) would be similarly useless on a dazed character?

Commander's Strike doesn't give extra actions. It doesn't even require an action being spent by the warlord's ally. By RAW, you can Commander's Strike and let a stunned ally make that attack (of course Commander's Strike is messed up on the whole: Do both characters add their enhancement bonus to the damage roll?  etc).

For other things (like Ring of Free time or an extra move action from Divine Oracle) I think it would be useless to activate it on a dazed turn.

If you believe that these things override the dazed limitor, what is stopping a player from using them while stunned? For the above, you can activate the Ring when it is not your turn (free action) and save up that extra minor action until it is your turn. You can be stunned before your turn came up, but you still have that "additional" minor action.

If it is a case of specific beats general, which is more specific? If dazed is more specific, than these aforementioned things do not override it. If dazed is not more specifc, then stunned falls into that camp as well, and those aforementioned things do override it.

Oct 15, 2009 -- 3:04PM, Dirge-Overdrive wrote:

I can instead use the Actions on your Turn section:

You get the following three actions on your turn:
Standard Action
Move Action
Minor Action

This still limits what you can do on your turn.  It too does not force you to take all three actions and allows you to swap out standards for moves, etc.

That is not a limiter. Going back to my card analogy. You are dealt 3 cards at the beginning of each of your turn and you can use them how you see fit. Just because you are dealt 3 cards does not mean that your maximum hand size is 3.

Just because I cannot afford a ferrari does not mean I am not allowed to ever buy one.

Oct 15, 2009 -- 2:19PM, Dirge-Overdrive wrote:

The basic rules limit a character to 3 actions on their turn.
The daze rule limit a character to 1 action on their turn.

So if the daze rule prevents extra actions, why doesn't the basic rule?

This answer assumes that the rules make a distinction between gaining an action and taking an action.  The following analogy is how I read the rules at the moment:

If this was a card game, then at the start of your turn you draw three cards.  You have an action point chit that you can spend to draw another card at any time during your turn.  You can then play your cards in any order you like.

It seems to me that the PHB terminology can be understood consistently on that analogy.  Where the rules say 'you gain/get' an action, it's as if you draw the card.  Where the rules say you 'take' an action, it's as if you play the card. 

The distinction seems required by: 1) the text box which says that you get three actions on your turn must mean you put them in your 'hand' or 'action pool'.  The later entry then says that you can take them and 'play' them in any order.  2) an action point doesn't require you to take the action immediately.  You spend the free action and action point, and the extra action, of whatever type, ends up in your 'hand'.  You can play it later on your turn.  (Incidentally an extra action is simply not a type of action.  It means action of type x.  That argument is definitely not right.)

I think that's the valid textual nitpicker/letter of the rules/implementing the algorithm interpretation.  Interpreted this way, the two rules don't straight clash, so it doesn't matter which one we take as more specific and which as more general.  I'd sympathize with someone who thought that degree of textual nitpicking is inappropriate.

ETA: it seems Suoitidure thought of the card analogy before I did.  Cross-posted or I just skimmed it.

Oct 15, 2009 -- 3:07PM, Suoitidure wrote:

If you believe that these things override the dazed limitor, what is stopping a player from using them while stunned?

I wouldn't posit that they might override the dazed limitor, but that they could simultaneously apply (and since it is possible to take actions while dazed, the concept of taking more actions doesn't seem alien). Conversely, I don't believe extra actions can simultaneously occur with the stunned condition, since the stunned condition prohibits actions.

I also speculate that the original writers would allow the extra actions while dazed. Do you believe they wouldn't?

Oct 15, 2009 -- 3:35PM, mvincent wrote:

Oct 15, 2009 -- 3:07PM, Suoitidure wrote:

If you believe that these things override the dazed limitor, what is stopping a player from using them while stunned?

I wouldn't posit that they might override the dazed limitor, but that they could simultaneously apply (and since it is possible to take actions while dazed, the concept of taking more actions doesn't seem alien). Conversely, I don't believe extra actions can simultaneously occur with the stunned condition, since the stunned condition prohibits actions.

What is different from going around dazed (which prohibits all but 1 action) and stunned (which prohibits all actions)?

Oct 15, 2009 -- 3:35PM, mvincent wrote:

I also speculate that the original writers would allow the extra actions while dazed. Do you believe they wouldn't?

I believe some would and some would not--otherwise the PH FAQ entry would have clarified that you can use the action you gained from spending an action point, instead of just saying you can spend an action point. Of course, the entry directly after that one contradicts what the dominated condition can do.

Oct 15, 2009 -- 3:11PM, Suoitidure wrote:

Oct 15, 2009 -- 3:04PM, Dirge-Overdrive wrote:

I can instead use the Actions on your Turn section:

You get the following three actions on your turn:
Standard Action
Move Action
Minor Action

This still limits what you can do on your turn.  It too does not force you to take all three actions and allows you to swap out standards for moves, etc.

That is not a limiter. Going back to my card analogy. You are dealt 3 cards at the beginning of each of your turn and you can use them how you see fit. Just because you are dealt 3 cards does not mean that your maximum hand size is 3.

Just because I cannot afford a ferrari does not mean I am not allowed to ever buy one.

Yes it's a limiter.

There is no need for analogies, because we are dealing with the rules. The clearly say you are limited to 3 actions on a nomral turn. Daze is a specific that lowers that to 1, action points is a specific that raises that +1

Oct 15, 2009 -- 3:39PM, Suoitidure wrote:

I believe some would and some would not--otherwise the PH FAQ entry would have clarified that you can use the action you gained from spending an action point, instead of just saying you can spend an action point. Of course, the entry directly after that one contradicts what the dominated condition can do.

They say that, because you can spend an action point other then getting an extra action. There is more then one use for action points.

Oct 15, 2009 -- 3:39PM, Dane_McArdy wrote:

The clearly say you are limited to 3 actions on a nomral turn.

No. It clearly says "You get the following three actions on your turn..." (PH 269)

There is no limit there.

Which, again, in normal usage (take/gain) will mean the same thing.

Oct 15, 2009 -- 3:51PM, Mahali_Audran wrote:

Which, again, in normal usage (take/gain) will mean the same thing.

So then, you have to spend your extra action as soon as you get it. And poor Divine Oracle can never use it's extra move action--since it gains it as soon as an action point is spent, but can't use it until later.

Oct 15, 2009 -- 3:41PM, Suoitidure wrote:

Oct 15, 2009 -- 3:39PM, Dane_McArdy wrote:

The clearly say you are limited to 3 actions on a nomral turn.

No. It clearly says "You get the following three actions on your turn..." (PH 269)

There is no limit there.

three is a limit.

Oct 15, 2009 -- 3:58PM, Dane_McArdy wrote:

Oct 15, 2009 -- 3:41PM, Suoitidure wrote:

Oct 15, 2009 -- 3:39PM, Dane_McArdy wrote:

The clearly say you are limited to 3 actions on a nomral turn.

No. It clearly says "You get the following three actions on your turn..." (PH 269)

There is no limit there.

three is a limit.

Three is a number. Five is also a number. Infinity is not a number, but is often misconstrued as such.

If the sentence I quoted said "You can use only the following three actions on your turn..." then that would be a limiting statement.

If you get three apples each day, does that mean you cannot go out and acquire more apples?

Oct 15, 2009 -- 4:03PM, Suoitidure wrote:

Three is a number. Five is also a number. Infinity is not a number, but is often misconstrued as such.

If the sentence I quoted said "You can use only the following three actions on your turn..." then that would be a limiting statement.

If you get three apples each day, does that mean you cannot go out and acquire more apples?

Your arguement is bupkiss. Three is a limit.  Because you try and change what things are, doesn't mean they are changed. Thus, your argument is wrong.

Also, can the analogies, those are mearly attempts to try and make some strawdog argument.

Oct 15, 2009 -- 4:10PM, Dane_McArdy wrote:

Oct 15, 2009 -- 4:03PM, Suoitidure wrote:

Three is a number. Five is also a number. Infinity is not a number, but is often misconstrued as such.

If the sentence I quoted said "You can use only the following three actions on your turn..." then that would be a limiting statement.

If you get three apples each day, does that mean you cannot go out and acquire more apples?

Your arguement is bupkiss. Three is a limit.  Becuase you try and change what things are, doesn't mean they are changed. Thus, your argument is wrong.

Fantastic rebuttal. Please enlighten me: how is three a limit in this sentence?

Your argument is mudkips. Three is not a limit (it is a number). Because you try and change what things are, doesn't mean they are changed. Thus, your argument is wrong.

Oct 15, 2009 -- 4:14PM, Suoitidure wrote:

Oct 15, 2009 -- 4:10PM, Dane_McArdy wrote:

Oct 15, 2009 -- 4:03PM, Suoitidure wrote:

Three is a number. Five is also a number. Infinity is not a number, but is often misconstrued as such.

If the sentence I quoted said "You can use only the following three actions on your turn..." then that would be a limiting statement.

If you get three apples each day, does that mean you cannot go out and acquire more apples?

Your arguement is bupkiss. Three is a limit.  Becuase you try and change what things are, doesn't mean they are changed. Thus, your argument is wrong.

Fantastic rebuttal. Please enlighten me: how is three a limit in this sentence?

Your argument is mudkips. Three is not a limit (it is a number). Because you try and change what things are, doesn't mean they are changed. Thus, your argument is wrong.

It's hard to counter point someone that says being allowed to only take 3 actions during a normal turn isn't a limit, because you say so. Because you realise that your arugment is flawed, so now you have to resort to the, I'll use an analogy that really doesn't apply, and when you say yes, then I will try and make that unrelated argument the reason.

Can you take 4 actions during a normal turn? Can you take 5 actions during a normal turn?

How many actions can you take during a normal turn?

Oct 15, 2009 -- 4:31PM, Dane_McArdy wrote:

It's hard to counter point someone that says being allowed to only take 3 actions during a normal turn isn't a limit, because you say so. Because you realise that your arugment is flawed, so now you have to resort to the, I'll use an analogy that really doesn't apply, and when you say yes, then I will try and make that unrelated argument the reason.

Can you take 4 actions during a normal turn? Can you take 5 actions during a normal turn?

How many actions can you take during a normal turn?

Where does it say "allowed to only take...?"

On a normal turn, you can take as many actions as you want--provided you have a way to get those actions. If you can somehow gain 50 standard actions on your turn, nothing is stopping you from using all 50 of those standard actions.

My interpretation:

Since spending an action point is a free action, every benefit gained by said free action is also a free action.  This is to say, the action point having a definition of free action, makes the spending of that extra gained (standard/move/minor) also a free action.  This would allow it to be utilized while dazed, but not while stunned.

Now, before you all get angry at me, I have a reason in which I believe this.  As a wizard, I frequently use Mordenkainen's Sword (PHB 163).  It is a level 9 daily, standard action.  It has a sustain minor component to it.  Thus, when I sustain the sword, it grants itself a repeat of the standard action with all of the modifiers I previously added to it.  Thus, my spending a minor action, grants a resulting standard action.  Because the sword states exactly what this might be used for, it can only be used for that one reason.  But, since it might be argued that the sword is its own entitity, I shall counter that the sword still uses all of my modifiers as the conjuring wizard.  Thus, it is not its own entity, but still tied in to my actions and my modifiers.  In fact, I can spend a move action to grant the sword movement.  Hence, I posit the argument, that the resulting action takes the form of the action that was utilized to spend it, whether that be a minor action granting what would otherwise be a standard action, but done in the place of a minor action, or in the case of an action point, a free action granting a standard, et al. action, taking the form of a free action.

I apologize if I am unclear. 

-TheNative

Oct 15, 2009 -- 4:52PM, TheNative wrote:

My interpretation:

Since spending an action point is a free action, every benefit gained by said free action is also a free action.  This is to say, the action point having a definition of free action, makes the spending of that extra gained (standard/move/minor) also a free action.  This would allow it to be utilized while dazed, but not while stunned.

Now, before you all get angry at me, I have a reason in which I believe this.  As a wizard, I frequently use Mordenkainen's Sword (PHB 163).  It is a level 9 daily, standard action.  It has a sustain minor component to it.  Thus, when I sustain the sword, it grants itself a repeat of the standard action with all of the modifiers I previously added to it.  Thus, my spending a minor action, grants a resulting standard action.  Because the sword states exactly what this might be used for, it can only be used for that one reason.  But, since it might be argued that the sword is its own entitity, I shall counter that the sword still uses all of my modifiers as the conjuring wizard.  Thus, it is not its own entity, but still tied in to my actions and my modifiers.  In fact, I can spend a move action to grant the sword movement.  Hence, I posit the argument, that the resulting action takes the form of the action that was utilized to spend it, whether that be a minor action granting what would otherwise be a standard action, but done in the place of a minor action, or in the case of an action point, a free action granting a standard, et al. action, taking the form of a free action.

I apologize if I am unclear. 

-TheNative

I can see where you are coming from with that, but the Sword specifies that a minor does both things. Nothing about spending an action point specifies that the extra action is used as a free action. Not to mention it negates bonuses from some Paragon Paths... Like Pit Fighter.

Extra Damage Action (11th level): When you spend an action point to take  an extra action, you also add one-half your level to the damage dealt by any of  your standard action attacks this turn.

Oct 15, 2009 -- 4:38PM, Suoitidure wrote:

Where does it say "allowed to only take...?"

I be this is your attempt to make it an argument about semantics and actual words. Since your strawman tactics aren't working cause no one seems to want to bite at them.

You want actual, keep reading.

Oct 15, 2009 -- 4:38PM, Suoitidure wrote:

On a normal turn, you can take as many actions as you want--provided you have a way to get those actions. If you can somehow gain 50 standard actions on your turn, nothing is stopping you from using all 50 of those standard actions.

Page 269

Under the main header of Actions on your turn.

Your Actions: You get the following three actions on your turn.

And in the same extry, it lists extra action seperate from the three it lists.

Here is the actual section, rather then typing it in.

So, it say three. Three is a limit (and a magic number). If you take actions above that, you need specific rules that allow you to. Such as spending an action point.

Please note, it doens't list spend an action point, it lists EXTRA ACTION.

In a normal turn, you are limited to 3 actions, and as many free actions. Spending an action point is a free action.

Daze effects the first bulleted point. It does not effect the free action and the extra action on your turn. It does effect your ability to use actions on other peoples turn.

Oct 15, 2009 -- 3:54PM, Suoitidure wrote:

Oct 15, 2009 -- 3:51PM, Mahali_Audran wrote:

Which, again, in normal usage (take/gain) will mean the same thing.

So then, you have to spend your extra action as soon as you get it. And poor Divine Oracle can never use it's extra move action--since it gains it as soon as an action point is spent, but can't use it until later.

I don't understand what you're trying to say there.  Seems pretty clear that you have another move action to use but can't be this turn.  Of course, it also seems pretty clear to me that spending an action point while dazed lets you perform another action.

So; lets take it from a different perspective.  We're all reading the same thing and come up with two choices.

What seems the most fun for players? What seems heroic?

You're Dazed,  you can't spend a precious resource and be heroic.  Try again later.  or Give it a shot and see what happens.

Wow, really?  We've gone 12 pages into this recycled debate?

The rules can be interpreted to support either side.  That ought to be firmly established by now.  Arguing over which interpretation is better is just semantics, and isn't going to go anywhere.

WotC hasn't issued a clear ruling.

Pick the interpretation that works best for your game.  IMO, rule of cool tells me that action points should let you be awesome, and thus I prefer the "gain and use a standard action" interpretation.  I don't see any balance issues here, and I think this follows RAI.  But if Suoitidure were my DM, and he ruled by his interpretaion, I'd be fine with that.

t~

Oct 15, 2009 -- 4:38PM, Suoitidure wrote:

 

Where does it say "allowed to only take...?"

On a normal turn, you can take as many actions as you want--provided you have a way to get those actions. If you can somehow gain 50 standard actions on your turn, nothing is stopping you from using all 50 of those standard actions.

You can take either a standard action, a move action, or a minor action on your turn (you can also take free actions). You can't take immediate actions or opportunity actions.

Straight from pg 277, using your own words, where does it say "allowed to only take?"

Oct 15, 2009 -- 3:20PM, Dewi wrote:

Oct 15, 2009 -- 2:19PM, Dirge-Overdrive wrote:

The basic rules limit a character to 3 actions on their turn.
The daze rule limit a character to 1 action on their turn.

So if the daze rule prevents extra actions, why doesn't the basic rule?

This answer assumes that the rules make a distinction between gaining an action and taking an action.  The following analogy is how I read the rules at the moment:

If this was a card game, then at the start of your turn you draw three cards.  You have an action point chit that you can spend to draw another card at any time during your turn.  You can then play your cards in any order you like.

It seems to me that the PHB terminology can be understood consistently on that analogy.  Where the rules say 'you gain/get' an action, it's as if you draw the card.  Where the rules say you 'take' an action, it's as if you play the card. 

The distinction seems required by: 1) the text box which says that you get three actions on your turn must mean you put them in your 'hand' or 'action pool'.  The later entry then says that you can take them and 'play' them in any order.  2) an action point doesn't require you to take the action immediately.  You spend the free action and action point, and the extra action, of whatever type, ends up in your 'hand'.  You can play it later on your turn.  (Incidentally an extra action is simply not a type of action.  It means action of type x.  That argument is definitely not right.)

"On your turn, you take actions: a standard action, a move action, a minor action, and any number of free actions, in any order you wish."  (PHB 266)

"You get the following three actions on your turn:
Standard Action
Move Action
Minor Action

Extra Action: you may take an extra action by spending an action point" (PHB 269)

I do not see a difference between take and get when it comes to actions as WotC uses them interchangeably in these two rules statements.  
The card analogy is weak, but if you must use it then we'll play with your rules; take = play and get = draw.

PHB 266 tells us that we can play a total of 3 cards.
PHB 269 tells us that we can draw a total of 3 cards.
Spending an action point would let us play 1 more card, but would not let us draw that card.

So apparently we can take an extra action even though we can never get an extra action.

Clearly this is false.  This is why the card analogy doesn't work and the take/get distinction is imaginary.

Edit: Whoops. Forgot to add in PHB 286 under Spend an Action Point: "Gain an extra action: You gain an extra action this turn."  I'll play nice and just assume that gain=get.

Spending an action point lets us draw and play 1 card.  Does this override the total number of cards we can play? I'm guessing you say yes. Why? 

So now when dazed: "You can take a standard action, a move action or a minor action." (PHB 277)

By our card, analogy PHB 277 means that we can play a total of 1 card.

Now we spend an action point and can draw and play 1 card. Does this override the total number of cards we can play? I'm guessing you say no.  Why not?

Oct 15, 2009 -- 9:26PM, miracleofmagick wrote:

Oct 15, 2009 -- 4:38PM, Suoitidure wrote:

 

Where does it say "allowed to only take...?"

On a normal turn, you can take as many actions as you want--provided you have a way to get those actions. If you can somehow gain 50 standard actions on your turn, nothing is stopping you from using all 50 of those standard actions.

You can take either a standard action, a move action, or a minor action on your turn (you can also take free actions). You can't take immediate actions or opportunity actions.

 

Straight from pg 277, using your own words, where does it say "allowed to only take?"

That would be under the dazed rules. I am quite aware that dazed says specifies that you can take 1 action. If you continue reading my post (what you quoted of my post as well) you will notice I was talking about a normal (not dazed) turn, not a dazed turn. Where, in the rules, does it say you can only take 3 actions on your normal (not dazed) turn?

Oct 15, 2009 -- 10:04PM, Dirge-Overdrive wrote:

"On your turn, you take actions: a standard action, a move action, a minor action, and any number of free actions, in any order you wish."  (PHB 266)

This is not a limiting sentence and I have already rebutted this in post 96 (without a response).

Oct 15, 2009 -- 10:04PM, Dirge-Overdrive wrote:

I do not see a difference between take and get when it comes to actions as WotC uses them interchangeably in these two rules statements. 

Really?

PH 273:
Prophetic Action (11th level): When you spend
an action point to take an extra action, you also gain
an extra move action that you can use during another
turn later in this encounter.

Here we have a clear difference between gaining an action and using an action... in the same book.

Oct 15, 2009 -- 10:04PM, Dirge-Overdrive wrote:

PHB 266 tells us that we can play a total of 3 cards.

No it doesn't. Again, that is not a limiting sentence.

Oct 15, 2009 -- 10:04PM, Dirge-Overdrive wrote:

Now we spend an action point and can draw and play 1 card. Does this override the total number of cards we can play? I'm guessing you say no.  Why not?

Because dazed gives an absolute use restriction. Nothing about gaining an action overrides the use restriction.

---

RE: Everyone arguing the "heroicness" of using a limited resource while dazed should be heroic. I don't see that same argument being put forth for daily attack powers being used while blinded/prone/weakened, etc. I think it is pretty heroic to lay down a fireball among loads of baddies--does that mean I should be able to avoid penalties placed by a condition?

Oct 16, 2009 -- 2:30AM, Suoitidure wrote:

That would be under the dazed rules. I am quite aware that dazed says specifies that you can take 1 action. If you continue reading my post (what you quoted of my post as well) you will notice I was talking about a normal (not dazed) turn, not a dazed turn. Where, in the rules, does it say you can only take 3 actions on your normal (not dazed) turn?

I've already shown you, it specificaly says 3 actions. It's funny how when presented with the actual page it says you, you suddenly stop addressing the person who presents the evidence, and switch over to arguing with someone else.

Oct 16, 2009 -- 2:30AM, Suoitidure wrote:

Because dazed gives an absolute use restriction. Nothing about gaining an action overrides the use restriction.

Sorry, but as shown, extra actions are listed as being completely seperate from the normal actions you are allowed on a turn. Daze does not say anything about limiting or effecting extra actions. Daze is very clearly on which actions it effects.

You've been very insistent on the wording of dazed. It limits your normal 3 actions to just one of them. I does not effect your free actions, you can't take acts on others turns, you grant combat advantage, you can't flank. That's it. Extra actions are a completely, as listed by the rules, seperate from the normal 3 actions you can take.

So you can see, you can take an extra action on your dazed turn, by using an action point as a free action.

Oct 16, 2009 -- 2:47AM, Dane_McArdy wrote:

Oct 16, 2009 -- 2:30AM, Suoitidure wrote:

Because dazed gives an absolute use restriction. Nothing about gaining an action overrides the use restriction.

Sorry, but as shown, extra actions are listed as being completely seperate from the normal actions you are allowed on a turn. Daze does not say anything about limiting or effecting extra actions.

You've been very insistent on the wording of dazed.

So you can see, you can take an extra action on your dazed turn, by using an action point as a free action.

Really? Where are these "extra actions" listed under "ACTION TYPES" (PH 267) That seems like the most appropriate place to look for types of actions, no?

Also, even if "extra actions" and "normal actions" are different, dazed makes no distinction. Dazed does not say "you can take either a normal standard action, a normal move action, or a normal minor action..."

"Extra" actions are still standard, move, or minor actions, which still fall under dazes restriction.

Oct 16, 2009 -- 2:52AM, Suoitidure wrote:

Really? Where are these "extra actions" listed under "ACTION TYPES" (PH 267) That seems like the most appropriate place to look for types of actions, no?

Also, even if "extra actions" and "normal actions" are different, dazed makes no distinction. Dazed does not say "you can take either a normal standard action, a normal move action, or a normal minor action..."

"Extra" actions are still standard, move, or minor actions, which still fall under dazes restriction.

Try reading, I've already shown you exactly where, the actual page. And that's not the only page it appears on.

You are wrong, you know you are wrong.

Oct 16, 2009 -- 2:54AM, Dane_McArdy wrote:

You are wrong, you know you are wrong.

Saying it over and over does not make it true. You have such fantastic rebuttals.

"Substitute" actions must be seperate from normal actions too, then, right? They are listed seperatly after all. Can I switch my "normal" actions for "substitute" actions and use those "substitute" actions while dazed (in addition to my one normal action)?

Also, I am reposting this because you ignored it:

Oct 16, 2009 -- 2:52AM, Suoitidure wrote:

Also, even if "extra actions" and "normal actions" are different, dazed makes no distinction. Dazed does not say "you can take either a normal standard action, a normal move action, or a normal minor action..."

"Extra" actions are still standard, move, or minor actions, which still fall under dazes restriction.

Wrong.

Oct 16, 2009 -- 3:06AM, Dane_McArdy wrote:

Wrong.

Very enlightening and an excellent addition to this debate. You strengthen your side of the debate every time you post.

Also, I am reposting this because you ignored it:

Oct 16, 2009 -- 2:52AM, Suoitidure wrote:

Also, even if "extra actions" and "normal actions" are different, dazed makes no distinction. Dazed does not say "you can take either a normal standard action, a normal move action, or a normal minor action..."

"Extra" actions are still standard, move, or minor actions, which still fall under dazes restriction.

Oct 16, 2009 -- 3:10AM, Suoitidure wrote:

Oct 16, 2009 -- 3:06AM, Dane_McArdy wrote:

Wrong.

Very enlightening and an excellent addition to this debate. You strengthen your side of the debate every time you post.

Also, I am reposting this because you ignored it:

Oct 16, 2009 -- 2:52AM, Suoitidure wrote:

Also, even if "extra actions" and "normal actions" are different, dazed makes no distinction. Dazed does not say "you can take either a normal standard action, a normal move action, or a normal minor action..."

"Extra" actions are still standard, move, or minor actions, which still fall under dazes restriction

What is this now a case of, I point out that you completely ignored my responses, so you say the same thing? "Your trying to turn this into, I know you are but what am I?" Seems rather childish.

Sure they can be spent on standard, move or minor actions. They are still extra, and you still get them, if you spend the action point, because they are seperate from the limit of 3 actions clearly listed in the actions on your turn.

You have yet to prove that being dazed limits extra actions in any way.You know when someone is right, they don't need to make strawmen arguments to try and trick people. That's all a strawman argument is. They don't ignore facts, because they don't want have to say they don't have an answer. And they certainly don't pull the old, I'm going to say what you say, in response.

Because they don't have too. Those are all tactics used by people who really have no response that address the issue. It's basically, lets shift the actual discussion, so we never address the issue. And then jump back like 5 points where you felt you had the best footing.

Look, if that's how you play, good. That's the game, it can be played anyway you want, and you can read the rules many ways.

You clearly don't like being told you are wrong. But you've spent most of the time on this thread telling everyone else they are wrong. So if you don't like being told you are wrong, maybe you should stop doing the same to everyone else, simply because they see things differently, and play the game the way that is most fun.

You're not wrong, I'm not wrong, everyone else on this thread isn't wrong. You play the game the way you want. It's always been that way.

god, i'm the OP and even i'm tired of this thread. look guys let's just quit the debate and call a truce. we don't play at the same table so no need for us to come any form of general consensus concerning this issue. we play it our table how we interpret it and you play it at your table how you interpret it. personally i would like a clear statement from  R&D but that's not gonna happen so let's just forget it.

I've actually poked someone inside WotC about this (someone who's in charge of the FAQ), if he doesn't post his reply here, I'll be happy to pass his answer along. 

(FWIW - I lean toward "yes - you can get an extra action with the AP, even while dazed").

Actually, I should have checked the Player's Handbook FAQ first - the answer is in there:

31. Can I spend an action point while I'm dazed?

Yes. Spending an action point is a free action, and you can take free actions while you're dazed.

Oct 16, 2009 -- 2:30AM, Suoitidure wrote:

 

 

That would be under the dazed rules. I am quite aware that dazed says specifies that you can take 1 action. If you continue reading my post (what you quoted of my post as well) you will notice I was talking about a normal (not dazed) turn, not a dazed turn. Where, in the rules, does it say you can only take 3 actions on your normal (not dazed) turn?

That's kind of the point I was making. In the section describing what you can do in a normal round, it gives you a limit of 3 by describing what you can do. In the dazed section it gives you a limit of 1 by describing what you can do. No where does it say in the normal section you can only take 3 actions and nowhere in the dazed section does it say you can only take 1 action.

Dazed is a limiting action right? In it's description is describes what it limits. Nowhere does it limit the use of an action point to take extra actions

Oct 16, 2009 -- 5:42AM, WolfStar76 wrote:

Actually, I should have checked the Player's Handbook FAQ first - the answer is in there:

31. Can I spend an action point while I'm dazed?

Yes. Spending an action point is a free action, and you can take free actions while you're dazed.

Sadly, this doesn't resolve the debate.  There's no question about whether you can spend the action point; the question is whether you can actually use the extra action.  Some argue that you can because it's an extra action, others argue that you can't because you can only use one action while dazed no matter how many actions you have access to.  As I said before, there's reasonable rules support for both sides, which is why the debate is just going in circles now that all the relevant rules have been cited.

t~

Amend it in your own game.  Choose a side of the fence to fall on and be done with it

The literal interpretations of this thread and the sheer amount of time wasted in participating in it is staggering.  If one of your players is going to argue about this to the point of anger, you need to find a new player to replace them.

Oct 16, 2009 -- 4:32AM, Dane_McArdy wrote:

You have yet to prove that being dazed limits extra actions in any way.You know when someone is right, they don't need to make strawmen arguments to try and trick people. That's all a strawman argument is. They don't ignore facts, because they don't want have to say they don't have an answer.

Fact. The three main action types are Standard, Move, and Minor.

Fact. Spending an action point gives you an extra Standard, Move, or Minor.

Fact. Dazed lets you use a single action (one) of the three main action types. It does not allow for more main actions beyond that one.

Fact. Nowhere does spending an action point say that you can use that action regardless of circumstances.

Ergo, an extra action still falls under the categorization of the three main action types and thus is still restricted by dazed.

---

That is my position based on the reading of the rules. I am finished here.

Oct 16, 2009 -- 5:42AM, WolfStar76 wrote:

Actually, I should have checked the Player's Handbook FAQ first - the answer is in there:

31. Can I spend an action point while I'm dazed?

Yes. Spending an action point is a free action, and you can take free actions while you're dazed.

That's been brought up. 

The argument is that you can spend the point, but you can't actually use the action. Which frankly, is not how 4E is meant to work, from everything the designers say about what they intend for the game.

Do people really think the designers thought along these lines:

"Oh sure you can get an extra action, but you can't use it, ha ha ha, we just tricked you into using your action point!"

Oct 16, 2009 -- 7:40AM, Suoitidure wrote:

Oct 16, 2009 -- 4:32AM, Dane_McArdy wrote:

You have yet to prove that being dazed limits extra actions in any way.You know when someone is right, they don't need to make strawmen arguments to try and trick people. That's all a strawman argument is. They don't ignore facts, because they don't want have to say they don't have an answer.

Fact. The three main action types are Standard, Move, and Minor.

Fact. Spending an action point gives you an extra Standard, Move, or Minor.

Fact. Dazed lets you use a single action (one) of the three main action types. It does not allow for more main actions beyond that one.

Fact. Nowhere does spending an action point say that you can use that action regardless of circumstances.

Ergo, an extra action still falls under the categorization of the three main action types and thus is still restricted by dazed.

---

That is my position based on the reading of the rules. I am finished here.

I reserve the right to doubt you are finished here.

How you play it out, works for your game. However, you insist everyone else is wrong, doesn't hold water. And if WoTC comes back and it turns out you are wrong, will you come back and make amends?

Here is another way to look at it. On pg 267 PHB under the surprise round:

Limited Action: If you get to act in the surprise round, you can take a standard action, a move action, or a minor action (see "Action Types"). You can also take free actions, but you can't spend action points.

Here it specifically states you cannot use action points. Nowhere in the dazed condition does it state you can't use them. 

Oct 15, 2009 -- 3:39PM, Suoitidure wrote:

Oct 15, 2009 -- 3:35PM, mvincent wrote:

I also speculate that the original writers would allow the extra actions while dazed. Do you believe they wouldn't?

I believe some would and some would not--otherwise the PH FAQ entry would have clarified that you can use the action you gained from spending an action point, instead of just saying you can spend an action point.

Ah. (For some reason the PHB FAQ has been unaccesable via my primary browsers, but thank you for noting this... I completely forgot about it)

WotC's FAQ says:
"Can I spend an action point while I'm dazed?
Yes. Spending an action point is a free action, and you can take free actions while you're dazed."

The answer should suffice for most players. I'll mention it in the board FAQ. Thanks again.

That answer on the FAQ doesn't answer whether or not you can use the extra action from spending the action point, though.  Since there are things that can happen on spending an action point (apart from gaining an extra action) it makes sense that you would be able to gain those effects without being able to take the extra action.

So, that still doesn't convince me.  Sorry.

Oct 16, 2009 -- 9:15AM, Undrhil wrote:

That answer on the FAQ doesn't answer whether or not you can use the extra action from spending the action point, though.

The intent of the statement should be clear enough for most.

Oct 16, 2009 -- 9:16AM, mvincent wrote:

The intent of the statement should be clear enough for most.

True, but many of us thought the intent was clear from the first printing of the PHB.  Here's to hoping! (cheers)

Oct 16, 2009 -- 9:15AM, Undrhil wrote:

That answer on the FAQ doesn't answer whether or not you can use the extra action from spending the action point, though.  Since there are things that can happen on spending an action point (apart from gaining an extra action) it makes sense that you would be able to gain those effects without being able to take the extra action.

So, that still doesn't convince me.  Sorry.

You really think they want the system to work that way? That you can do something but NOT get the benefit from being able to do it?

That is the basic logic you are presenting. That the rules allow you to do something, but that you can not benefit from the results of doing it.

I seriously don't think that is the intended design.

I have to ask - how is this argument still going on?  Dazed says NOTHING about only 1 action.  Read carefully what is written, and compare it to what is normal.  "You can take either a standard action, a move action, or a minor action on your turn (you can also take free actions)"

There are two distinct parts - one describing your turn, and an ADDITIONAL allowance for free actions.

Further, under ACTION POINTS, it defines the limitations of usng them
a) they must be taken on your turn
b) never during a surprise round.

and you gain an EXTRA action.  Is the definition of extra what is being questioned?

Oct 16, 2009 -- 2:30AM, Suoitidure wrote:

Oct 15, 2009 -- 10:04PM, Dirge-Overdrive wrote:

"On your turn, you take actions: a standard action, a move action, a minor action, and any number of free actions, in any order you wish."  (PHB 266)

This is not a limiting sentence and I have already rebutted this in post 96 (without a response).

I immediately responded to that in post 100 with as much textual support as you used, but we can go more in depth. 

Oct 15, 2009 -- 2:32PM, mvincent wrote:

There is no limit placed on a normal turn.

If "On your turn, you take actions: a standard action, a move action, a minor action, and any number of free actions, in any order you wish." is taken as a restriction then 1) You cannot trade down action types, 2) you have to use all of your actions before your turn is considered over; also the specific rule for standard action says "You can normally take one standard action on your turn."

Your statement does nothing to "rebuff" the idea that the quote from PHB 266 limits what you can do on your turn.  
1) Why couldn't you trade down action types? The rule doesn't address using a standard action to take a move action. The Actions on your Turn section describes how you can swap out actions, and this rule does not contradict that. 
2) So, I'm guessing, you're suggesting that because the rule says "you take" and not "you can take", that it would imply that all the actions must be performed before your turn can end?  The Actions on your Turn section states that any action can be skipped, and this rule does not contradict that.
In  the statement from the Standard Actions section, the "normally" supports the limit while recognizing the existence of action points and other ways of skirting the limit, just as the Move Action and Minor Action sections use "normally" to recognize the existence of powers that let characters take move actions and minor action during other's turns.

If the statement on PHB 266 doesn't limit the actions you can take, then it isn't a rule at all.

Oct 16, 2009 -- 10:32AM, PBN wrote:

I have to ask - how is this argument still going on?  Dazed says NOTHING about only 1 action.  Read carefully what is written, and compare it to what is normal.  "You can take either a standard action, a move action, or a minor action on your turn (you can also take free actions)"

There are two distinct parts - one describing your turn, and an ADDITIONAL allowance for free actions.

Further, under ACTION POINTS, it defines the limitations of usng them
a) they must be taken on your turn
b) never during a surprise round.

and you gain an EXTRA action.  Is the definition of extra what is being questioned?

We're still trying to determine what 'is' means.

I'll just put this in here again:

"You can spend either a standard action, a move action or a minor action (you may also spend free actions."

By spending an action point as a free action, you get an EXTRA ACTION which can be a standard action, a move action or a minor action.  Now, which part of the dazed condition allows you to spend a second standard action, move action or minor action?  It doesn't.

Why are you allowed to take that extra action normally by spending an action point?  Because the rules under "Actions on your turn" says you can.  When you are dazed, the dazed condition dictates what actions you are allowed to take on your turn.  Does it say you can take an extra action during your dazed turn by spending an action point?  No.

"Actions on your turn." - PHB, pg 269
You get the following three actions on your turn:
Standard action
Move action
Minor action

✦ Free Actions: You can take any number of free actions on your turn.

✦ Any Order: You can take your actions in any order you wish, and you can skip any of them.

✦ Substitute Actions: You can take a move action or a minor action instead of a standard action, and you can take a minor action instead of a move action.

✦ Extra Action: You can take an extra action by spending an action point (page 286).

✦ Other Combatants' Actions: Other combatants can take free actions on your turn, and you might take actions that trigger immediate actions or opportunity actions from other combatants.

Compare to the dazed condition:

"Dazed" - PHB, pg 277:

✦ You grant combat advantage.

✦ You can take either a standard action, a move action, or a minor action on your turn (you can also take free actions). You can't take immediate actions or opportunity actions.

✦ You can't flank an enemy.

Now, does it have a bullet that says you can get an extra action by spending an action point?  No.  It doesn't.

Oct 16, 2009 -- 12:21PM, Undrhil wrote:

 

"You can spend either a standard action, a move action or a minor action (you may also spend free actions."

By spending an action point as a free action, you get an EXTRA ACTION which can be a standard action, a move action or a minor action.  Now, which part of the dazed condition allows you to spend a second standard action, move action or minor action?  It doesn't.

You're right, the Action Point does that.

Oct 16, 2009 -- 12:21PM, Undrhil wrote:

Why are you allowed to take that extra action normally by spending an action point?  Because the rules under "Actions on your turn" says you can.  When you are dazed, the dazed condition dictates what actions you are allowed to take on your turn.  Does it say you can take an extra action during your dazed turn by spending an action point?  No.

And it says you can take free actions. Spending an action point is a free action. Spending an action point allows you to take an extra action.

I'm having a pretty hard time believing that you are seriously saying that you can spend an action point and not get an extra action, but just in case, here is how I see it.

This is a game where you have rules, and then exceptions to those rules.  With that being pretty much the cardinal rule, let's examine:

Oct 16, 2009 -- 12:21PM, Undrhil wrote:

"Actions on your turn." - PHB, pg 269
You get the following three actions on your turn:
Standard action
Move action
Minor action

This is the basic behavior, the general way a player's turn unfolds.  We all agree on this, right?  Now we get to an exception to that turn, when a player is Dazed:

Oct 16, 2009 -- 12:21PM, Undrhil wrote:

"Dazed" - PHB, pg 277:

✦ You grant combat advantage.

✦ You can take either a standard action, a move action, or a minor action on your turn (you can also take free actions). You can't take immediate actions or opportunity actions.

✦ You can't flank an enemy.

In this turn, a character is Dazed, and cannot use his or her full turn.  Exception beats rule, everyone still agrees to this point, correct?

Oct 16, 2009 -- 12:21PM, Undrhil wrote:

"You can spend either a standard action, a move action or a minor action (you may also spend free actions."

By spending an action point as a free action, you get an EXTRA ACTION which can be a standard action, a move action or a minor action.

Now, does [DAZED] have a bullet that says you can get an extra action by spending an action point?  No.  It doesn't.

You are correct, the Dazed condition doesn't spell out what happens when one spends an action point, because Action Points are an Exception to the Rules, and we don't need every exception pointed out for every rule.   We have the rule of 3 Actions per Turn, exceptioned to 1 from the Daze, exceptioned to 2 from the Action Point.

Now that we have the rules backing it up, we can also toss out there the obvious intent of these things - Action Points are a way for your character to feel completely AWESOME every two encounters.  If you are able to do two things when Dazed, that is a lot more AWESOME than just one.  Also, the intent is to have fun.  Dazed sucks enough without it allowing you to waste Action Points - ruling like that is not fun for anyone except a cruel DM.

Poor action point, crippled by its versatility.  If it allowed an extra basic attack, we wouldn't have this discussion, but since it grants an extra standard, move or minor action to open up the possibilities, it's useless when dazed.  I don't buy this.

Oct 16, 2009 -- 12:21PM, Undrhil wrote:

I'll just put this in here again:

...

Now, does it have a bullet that says you can get an extra action by spending an action point?  No.  It doesn't.

Again, I ask, you really believe that the design intent was to allow you to do something, but not be able to actually do it?

Also, I've pointed out how under actions you can take, and you can see the actual page, extra action is listed as a complete and seperate bullet. Since it's it's own seperate bulleted point, and isn't addressed under Dazed, I submit that since daze doesn't list extra action under what it does effect, you can get an extra action, and use it.

Following the type of logic you are laying out.

Oct 16, 2009 -- 1:24PM, Anterak22 wrote:

Poor action point, crippled by its versatility.  If it allowed an extra basic attack, we wouldn't have this discussion, but since it grants an extra standard, move or minor action to open up the possibilities, it's useless when stunned.  I don't buy this.

just to clarify, did you mean dazed here? Because action points are useless when stunned since you can't take a free action to use the action point

Oct 16, 2009 -- 1:32PM, miracleofmagick wrote:

Oct 16, 2009 -- 1:24PM, Anterak22 wrote:

Poor action point, crippled by its versatility.  If it allowed an extra basic attack, we wouldn't have this discussion, but since it grants an extra standard, move or minor action to open up the possibilities, it's useless when stunned.  I don't buy this.

just to clarify, did you mean dazed here? Because action points are useless when stunned since you can't take a free action to use the action point

You're right, I meant dazed.  I'll correct, thanks.

Oct 16, 2009 -- 12:21PM, Undrhil wrote:

I'll just put this in here again:

...stuff...

✦ You can take either a standard action, a move action, or a minor action on your turn (you can also take free actions). You can't take immediate actions or opportunity actions.

...stuf...

Now, does it have a bullet that says you can get an extra action by spending an action point?  No.  It doesn't.

As a matter of fact, it does say exactly that. You can take a free action. Spending an action point is a free action. No where ever in the rules does it say that there may be times when you are allowed to do something, but can't actually do what that something is.

Because that extra action is also a free action. It doesn't take place of anything else you can do on that round.

Oct 16, 2009 -- 2:22PM, Dane_McArdy wrote:

As a matter of fact, it does say exactly that. You can take a free action. Spending an action point is a free action. No where ever in the rules does it say that there may be times when you are allowed to do something, but can't actually do what that something is.

Because that extra action is also a free action. It doesn't take place of anything else you can do on that round.

Free action has a precise meaning in the rules, and an action point doesn't give you a free action.  Just as well really, because you couldn't attack with a free action.  An extra action does not have a precise meaning in the rules.  An action point doesn't give you anything called an 'extra action'.  It gives you an extra 'X action', where X can be 'standard/move/minor'.  Yes, this is logical nitpicking.

I think the restrictive interpretation is the correct logical nitpicking interpretation.  It is what I think you would get if you programmed a computer to DM with just the rules in the PHB.  Whether that's a good way to resolve a rule ambiguity is another matter.  Personally, I think that RAW says you can't use an action point to give yourself an additional action when dazed.  I also think I would house rule it in a game I was running so you could.  But I think that would indeed be a house rule from a nitpicking point of view.

Incidentally, there are still reasons why someone might spend an action point while dazed.  First, some paragon paths allow you to do something other than take an extra action with an action point.  If you're a Fighter: Kensei, you can still spend an action point to get a reroll.  Second, other paragon paths give you bonuses to actions you take with an action point.  So if you're dazed you can still pick up those bonuses.  E.g. if you're a Cleric: Angelic Avenger, and there's a Tactical Warlord in the party, you could still spend an action point to get a +6 or so to your attack, and +4 to any additional attacks you might make before the start of your next turn.

In support of the distinction between gaining and taking an action:

The cleric: angelic avenger in our above example can do the following if not dazed.

1) Spend an action point at the start of her turn to get a standard action.

2) Attack using her usual standard action, getting +4 because she spent an action point to get an extra action.

3) If she takes down that enemy, move adjacent to the BBEG.

4) Attack the BBEG using the standard action granted by her action point, getting +6 from the action point and +2 from the warlord.

The above manoeuvre only works because getting an action is different from taking the action.

Thinking about the above it occurs to me that the restrictive interpretation might be open to what some DMs would consider an abuse.

Consider our Fighter: Kensei.  Suppose he's a human with the Paragon Feat: Action Recovery.  He spends an extra action.  He gets an extra action.  However, he doesn't take the extra action; he rerolls his attack roll instead.  However, on the restrictive interpretation he still gained an extra action.  He just didn't take it.  So Action Recovery still allows him to roll a saving throw against every effect on him that a save can end.

Some DMs might consider that that's clearly not RAI and a reason for not using that interpretation.  On the other hand, I would have thought that paragon paths and feats that allow you to use action points for purposes other than taking additional actions are in general suboptimal - and one of the reasons would be that they don't trigger effects that occur when you take the extra action from the action point.  So I don't think that's a gross powergamer abuse.

Oct 16, 2009 -- 3:44PM, Dewi wrote:

[

Free action has a precise meaning in the rules, and an action point doesn't give you a free action.  Just as well really, because you couldn't attack with a free action.  An extra action does not have a precise meaning in the rules.  An action point doesn't give you anything called an 'extra action'.  It gives you an extra 'X action', where X can be 'standard/move/minor'.  Yes, this is logical nitpicking.

 

meaning more than you would otherwise have. You're logical nitpicking actually argues in favor of the permissive ruling

Oct 16, 2009 -- 4:55PM, miracleofmagick wrote:

Oct 16, 2009 -- 3:44PM, Dewi wrote:

[

Free action has a precise meaning in the rules, and an action point doesn't give you a free action.  Just as well really, because you couldn't attack with a free action.  An extra action does not have a precise meaning in the rules.  An action point doesn't give you anything called an 'extra action'.  It gives you an extra 'X action', where X can be 'standard/move/minor'.  Yes, this is logical nitpicking.

 

meaning more than you would otherwise have. You're logical nitpicking actually argues in favor of the permissive ruling

Have but still be unable to use since the dazed condition says "You may take either a standard action, a move action or a minor action."  So, if you have two standard actions, and you take one, that's it.  You cannot take another one.  This is the same logic that goes along with the healing power one gets from taking the Cleric multiclass feat.

The feat says you get the power once per day.  "But the power says Special: you can use this feat twice per encounter but once per round."  So, how many times can you use this power?  Once, because the feat says it's once per day, even though the power says (under normal circumstances) that it would be usable twice per encounter.

Oct 16, 2009 -- 8:24PM, Undrhil wrote:

 

Have but still be unable to use since the dazed condition says "You may take either a standard action, a move action or a minor action."  So, if you have two standard actions, and you take one, that's it.  You cannot take another one.  This is the same logic that goes along with the healing power one gets from taking the Cleric multiclass feat.

The feat says you get the power once per day.  "But the power says Special: you can use this feat twice per encounter but once per round."  So, how many times can you use this power?  Once, because the feat says it's once per day, even though the power says (under normal circumstances) that it would be usable twice per encounter.

When you use an action point to gain an extra action, you get to use that action. Nowhere does it say otherwise. If the daze condition was meant to restrict action point use it would have said so. You are hung up on the word either, which restricts what is normally available to you in the dazed condition. Action points override that. It's what they do.

Well, gee.  So, you want me to ignore words in the conditions now?  They didn't just throw that word in there for flavor text.

The word 'either' is in the condition text.  As long as it is there, it is part of the condition.  Having that word in there is the difference between the condition saying "You can take one of these actions (and free actions)" and "You can take *only* one of these actions (and free actions)."  These are two completely different statements.

Let's flesh it out.

"You can take either a standard action, a move action or a minor action on your turn (you may also gain an extra action by spending an action point.)"

So ... I take a standard action and gain an extra action.  Gaining is not the same as taking, so I'm still limited to the original three actions to take. 

There are plenty of feats and powers which key off of spending an action point.  Even at level 1, you could be in a party with a Warlord who gives you some healing and a saving throw when you spend an action point, whether you take the action given by that action point or not.  And, if you spend an action point, make a save against a condition dazing you and you succeed, then you get to take the rest of your actions for that turn (including the one you got for spending an action point.)

Oct 16, 2009 -- 10:08PM, Undrhil wrote:

Well, gee.  So, you want me to ignore words in the conditions now?  They didn't just throw that word in there for flavor text.

The word 'either' is in the condition text.  As long as it is there, it is part of the condition.  Having that word in there is the difference between the condition saying "You can take one of these actions (and free actions)" and "You can take *only* one of these actions (and free actions)."  These are two completely different statements.

Let's flesh it out.

"You can take either a standard action, a move action or a minor action on your turn (you may also gain an extra action by spending an action point.)"

So ... I take a standard action and gain an extra action.  Gaining is not the same as taking, so I'm still limited to the original three actions to take. 

There are plenty of feats and powers which key off of spending an action point.  Even at level 1, you could be in a party with a Warlord who gives you some healing and a saving throw when you spend an action point, whether you take the action given by that action point or not.  And, if you spend an action point, make a save against a condition dazing you and you succeed, then you get to take the rest of your actions for that turn (including the one you got for spending an action point.)

You're absolutely right, gaining is not the same as taking. But as soon as you gain that action you can take it. I'm not saying you should ignore words in the condition, but you are ignoring words in the action point description, mainly the word extra. You know extra, as in addition to?

Actually, no.  That's where you are wrong.  Refer to my previous post about "Actions on your Turn" and "Dazed".

"Actions on your Turn" specifically says that you can spend an action point to take an extra action.

The dazed condition is limiting the actions you can take on your turn and therefore overrides that part of the "Actions on your turn" rules.

Yes, you can spend free actions on your turn while dazed.  There are plenty of utility powers, item powers, attacks, etc. which are free and no actions.  Spending an action point is also a free action, but using that extra action is *not* a free action.

I'm new to 4th Ed. and have only GM'd a few sessions.  I have only read through page 6 on this thread as well.  That said, it seems we are at the same old argument, Intent v. RAW.  It's always been the GM's conundrum.  What to do... what to do?  Good arguments on both sides, no doubt.  It seems to me that action points should be a case of the specific rule trumping the general rule.  It seems that action points should be special.  Now *why* are we still questioning Intent v. RAW?  One would hope that WotC could produce a system devoid of ambiguities, they can not.  For that matter no system can be formed without ambiguities.  I would allow a player to use an action point to gain a 'second action' while Dazed.  I feel it's within the 'spirit of the rules'.   

I apologize if what I have said has been addressed or 'fixed'.  I will read the remainder of the thread, but sometimes ya just gotta say sumthin'. 

Edit: D'oh! How does it break the game to allow for the 'second' or extra action while Dazed?  Does it change anything all that much?  I honestly don't know?  Sorry for the edit but I simply forgot to put the question in the original text.   

Oct 16, 2009 -- 4:55PM, miracleofmagick wrote:

meaning more than you would otherwise have. You're logical nitpicking actually argues in favor of the permissive ruling

It argues in favour of the permissive ruling as RAI.  As I said, the permissive ruling is what I'd house rule.  But I stand by my opinion that the restrictive ruling is RAW.

Just thought I'd chime in a little, when limiting actions allowed in a turn you should perhaps look to the suprise round rules, which is very similar to daze in that you get one action, either a standard, move or a minor and can take free actions, but it specifically states you cannot use action points.

Suprise round limits you as such, "Limited Action: If you get to act in the surprise round, you can take a standard action, a move action, or a minor action (see “Action Types”). You can also take free actions, but you can’t spend action points."

The wording for "Extra action" as part of the actions on your turn (phb pg 269) says explicitly "You can TAKE an extra action by spending an action point (page 286)" Note that it does not use the word gain here, it says take, and this is the rule of what happens on your turn, Daze does not alter that since it only alters the category of "your actions" under actions on your turn.  Caps was my emphasis of course.

When limiting your actions they are very specific when it limits more than just the standard allotment of 3 actions per turn.  Stunned even shows that you can't "take" actions, which means you can't spend an action point, and even if you gain an action through other means you can't take it.  

I'm in the camp of ...1 out of 3 + 1 = 1 out of 4.  Eighter a X , a Y or a Z....means a restriction to me. whatever the possibilities given to you while Dazed, it won't change the fact the you can take eighter a Standard, a Move or a Minor as well as many Free actions as you can possibly take, this despite what you can gain over the course of this same Dazed turn, including extra actions. I believe you can spend an AP to gain an extra action. I don't believe you can use any extra action while Dazed. But you would get all the benefits of doing so.  An extra action only let you  take one more action, this through the uses of an AP or some other sources, so it increases the possibilities you have and the action you can possibly take normally. But if any condition restricts you from taking any more than eighter a Standard, a move or a Minor action, unfortunatly, you will be limited to use eighter a Standard, a move or a Minor action only, regardless of want you can possibly take. You could be well taking the Standard granted by the AP if you'd want, but that would count tioward the max you can take during your Dazed turn.

The card was a good exemple.

If you really think you can spend an action point to gain an extra action and not be able to use it, that's fine for you. But until I see an actual rule that prevents it, I will not view it that way. Action points grant you an extra action, and when you are granted an extra action you can use it. I have seen nothing that says otherwise.

Oh i didn't say you couldn't use it, i said that if you do, that will count toward the maximum number of action you can take during a Dzed turn, which is set by it's restriction withing the condition itself, that is taking eighter a Standard, a Move or a minor. That's it. Until this is clarified, this is how i'll do it.

There is 6 ways that prevent you from taking an extra action by using an AP IMC, During a Surprise, or when Dazed, Dominated, Petrified or Stunned and when Unconcious or dying.

Look a Dominated creature, i don't see why it could take an AP and get an extra action and act in a turn it is not in control of it's actions, which is why Dazed must restrict to only 1 action. The main force of Dominate has two aspects, first to restrict your actions you can take, and second to use this action that is left to you in place of you. Given any extra action to kick in, you could move away before it can use your At-will to hit one of your ally, and not to mention, what and who would decide in which order the actions would happen and everything. An initiative ? the DM ? It start to be complicated for such a simple rule. Without all those explanations, it's fair to assume that you just can't take extra action while Dominated, thus while Dazed.

Actually you can action point while dominated, it would just let your dominator force you to use another at will power.  

The biggest problem I'm seeing in how those who feel you can't use the extra action is they are adding the "only one action" to dazed, it doesn't say that, it says you can use either X, Y or Z, nowhere does it state you can't get another X, Y or Z through other means, just that under normal circumstances you'd get either X Y or Z instead of X Y and Z.

I knew we had this discussion before by the way, I just forgot it was on twitter. Here are some responses that were given

Mike Mearls
"@WolfStar76 Yay. Action point just adds a std action. Daze doesn't stop you from getting more actions. Just takes move & minor."
twitter.com/mikemearls/status/2180886616 

Greg Bilsland
@WolfStar76 I allow it in my game. I'm with SRM. Intent seems to be that you can use them. Action points tend to be exception to rules.
twitter.com/gregbilsland/status/21810194...

Chris Tulach
@WolfStar76 I say sure.
twitter.com/christulach/status/218619331...

James Wyatt - Aquelajames, did not reply 

In response to this question posed by wolfstar76, our RPGA forums VCL.

I guess none of that is official but since the raw is unclear to some, the RAI should be obvious from those replies.  To me the RAW clearly allows it because it does not forbid it.

I guess none of that is official but since the raw is unclear to some, the RAI should be obvious from those replies.  To me the RAW clearly allows it because it does not forbid it.

I thought that was one of the golden rules of 4e.

"Say Yes."

"If it is not forbidden it is allowed."

"Page 42."

It does not say that you do not get the action to use when spending your action point while dazed, so it should be allowed, and if in debate, say yes.

Oct 18, 2009 -- 2:26PM, ibixat wrote:

Actually you can action point while dominated, it would just let your dominator force you to use another at will power.  

The biggest problem I'm seeing in how those who feel you can't use the extra action is they are adding the "only one action" to dazed, it doesn't say that, it says you can use either X, Y or Z, nowhere does it state you can't get another X, Y or Z through other means, just that under normal circumstances you'd get either X Y or Z instead of X Y and Z.

Well, it's pretty clear that we're all agreed that dazed doesn't mean you get either a standard, move or minor action in addition to your allocation of three actions.  So it must be some kind of limitation.  The question is how much of a limitation.

Have you read the analogy of drawing and playing cards?  That still seems to me the clearest way of understanding our side of the argument.

I can't see any basis in the rules as written for saying that your dominator can force you to use any extra actions you might get as they wish.  Either you can't use extra actions at all, or if you do, you get to use them as you see fit.  The 'dominated' text says nothing about the dominator choosing any additional actions.  It says that the dominator gets to decide 'your action' (singular).  I don't think that there's anything inherently objectionable about dropping the letter of the rules if that would provoke disbelief - but I think the DM should be eyes open that that's what he or she is doing in case the players' standard of disbelief is other than the DMs.

The playing card analogy is flawed.  If you are allowed to normally play 3 cards per turn and have 3 cards, the action point grants you and extra that you can play.  Why does limiting the initial 3 to 1 limit the action point from granting you an extra card that you can play?

Normal rules are you get 3 actions and can use all of your actions, daze limits you to getting just one of the normal 3, are you saying you can't use an action granted by a warlord while dazed or some other source?  Dazed action limitations apply only to the normal allocation of actions in a turn and immediate actions, nothing else, because the dazed condition does NOT say it applies to anything else.  Anything that specifically limits you in the game is going to explicitly spell out what it limits.

I honestly can't believe that this is really a discussion anymore that people can't see how it was written.  

✦ Your Actions: You get the following three actions on your turn:

Standard action
Move action
Minor action

If you read that and treat it the same way you are treating your reading of the dazed condition then you can't action point and take an extra action EVER.  Even though the standard turn definition says you can take an extra action from action point usage, nowhere in dazed does it say you can't do that.  Really that's all there is to it.  Read the responses from the dev's I posted above.  Suprise round rules say you Can't action point, dazed rules don't say that.  The reading is clear, if they wanted you to not be able to action point, they would have said so, since they didn't say so and because the rules say you can action point as a free action (which you are allowed to do when dazed) you can action point and use the action.  If you couldn't action point when dazed the rule would be written like the suprise round rule for free actions.

As has been said countless times before on this thread: spending an action point can have other benefits besides gaining an extra action.  Also, the dazed condition overrules what "Actions on your turn" you can take and, thus, overrule the "Spend an action point to take an extra action."  It does this because it says, "You can take either a standard action, a move action or a minor action (and you may take free actions.)"  It doesn't say "Also, you may spend an action point to take another action." so that part of the "Actions on your turn" is overridden.

EDIT:

I missed the card analogy, but I think it would be something like this:

On your turn, you have a King, Queen and Jack card.  Sometime previous to your turn, you were dazed and the dealer at the table says "You can use either a King, a Queen or a Jack (or you can use any Aces.)"  Aces in this case can be a King, Queen or Jack.

So, you look at your hand, and you decide to use an Ace.  Now, your hand contains an Ace, a King, a Queen and a Jack.  If you use the Ace, it's the same as using a King, a Queen or a Jack.  So, you have these cards in your hand and you use the Ace.  That's the end of your turn since you have used either a King, a Queen or a Jack, regardless of the other cards you have left in your hand.

Ok I get the whole "card" analogy but I still think it's completely bogus. Because doing it that way effectively says that you find the following perfectly acceptable in a 4th ed game:

Player: "I'm dazed so I use my standard action to attack."

*Resolve attack*

Player to DM: "Can I use an action point while dazed?"

DM: "You sure can."

Player: "Cool I use an action point and attack again."

DM: "Hah sucked in you just wasted your action point because even though you can use it, you can't use the standard action from it while dazed."

Player: "So I can use it but can't use it?"

DM: "Exactly!"

A Dazed player can attack if a Warlord lets them via Commanders Strike, so why is it so implausible that using an action point will let someone use an extra Standard action while dazed?

That is wrong though, the Dazed condition does NOT override the entire section of Actions on Your Turn.  It overrides just the "your actions" part because that is what is says that contradicts the actions on your turn section.  If it overrided the entire section then the last section "Other combatant's actions" would be broken and other people/enemies would not be able to take free actions, or trigger reactions/interrupts to your action. 

Something is not disallowed because the Dazed condition doesn't say it's allowed... That is not how the rules work, the rules allow it to happen unless they say it can't be done.  That is a base 4e Design principle, quite different than 3.5.

If you look at the Extra Action section is says "You can take an extra action by spending an action point" why do people think dazed overrides this, where in dazed does it say "you cannot gain any extra actions"

Normal
✦ Your Actions: You get the following three actions on your turn:
Standard action
Move action
Minor action

Dazed

✦ You can take either a standard action, a move action, or a minor action on your turn (you can also take free actions). You can’t take immediate actions or opportunity actions.

Oct 15, 2009 -- 2:37PM, Suoitidure wrote:

There is no limit placed on a normal turn.

In fact it is a restriction. If it is not a restriction, I'll take five standard actions on one turn (without spending an action point).

If "On your turn, you take actions: a standard action, a move action, a minor action, and any number of free actions, in any order you wish." is taken as a restriction then 1) You cannot trade down action types

except that there are rules explicitly stating that you CAN, so you have to ignore explicit RAW to arrive at this RAI.

2) you have to use all of your actions before your turn is considered over;

If this is the rule, then any actions you want to not use, trade down to minor actions, and spend them on adjusting the buttons and ties on your clothing. So it's a pointless time-waster of a rule.

And also point out that even if you are dazed you still HAVE TO take all three actions.

also the specific rule for standard action says "You can normally take one standard action on your turn."

I am not sure of the point of this. Since trading down is explicitly allowed, you can choose to NOT take a standard action - in which case you CAN choose to take more than one of either of the other action types listed.

Here's the RAW that everyone is arguing about:

Page 269 (Actions on your turn): You get (does not say "can take") the following three actions on your turn: standard action, move action, minor action... You can take an extra action by spending an action point (page 286).

Page 286 (Spend an action point: free action): You gain an extra action this turn. You decide if the action is a standard action, a move action, or a minor action. (But does not say you can take the action.)

Page 277 (Conditions, Dazed): You can take either a standard action, a move action, or a minor action.

Now let's suppose you are dazed. The argument that you can't take an extra action via an action point is based on the assumption that you get the normal three actions as per p.269, but only can take one of them. And then the text on page 286 does not say that you can take an extra action gained by spending an action point.

However, the text on page 269 does say that you can take an extra action by spending an action point.

There is only one conclusion that is absolutely justified, and that is..

... that the rules aren't well written here.

Now I happen to think that the INTENT was to allow the expenditure of an action point to take an extra action, but I can't point to any totally unambiguous wording that would allow this to a dazed character. And there are other uses for action points.

Oct 18, 2009 -- 7:11PM, ibixat wrote:

The playing card analogy is flawed.  If you are allowed to normally play 3 cards per turn and have 3 cards, the action point grants you and extra that you can play.  Why does limiting the initial 3 to 1 limit the action point from granting you an extra card that you can play?

Normal rules are you get 3 actions and can use all of your actions, daze limits you to getting just one of the normal 3, are you saying you can't use an action granted by a warlord while dazed or some other source?  Dazed action limitations apply only to the normal allocation of actions in a turn and immediate actions, nothing else, because the dazed condition does NOT say it applies to anything else.  Anything that specifically limits you in the game is going to explicitly spell out what it limits.

Dazed does not say that it only applies to the normal allocation.  It does not say you may only take one of your normal three actions.  It says you may take one action.  There's nothing there about 'normal'.

Hence the ambiguity.

Likewise, the action point rules don't explicitly say that you can take the action.  However, the general rules for actions on p.269 say 'you can take your actions in any order you wish'.  (Nothing there applies only to normal actions.)  So we take the action from the action point under the general rules.  We then assume that daze is a more specific case.  So the specific case of daze limits the general case.

What other grounds do we have for thinking daze more specific than the action point rules?  The general rules are on p.269, and they mention action points.  They don't mention any condition that limits you from taking actions.  Therefore, it seems reasonable to take the dazed rules as more specific than the action point rules.

Just to be clear, if we're consistent we have to rule that someone who is dazed can't use any additional actions from sources such as warlord powers that grant additional actions on their turn, unless the warlord power specifically says 'take an action'.  They do not stop the dazed character from taking actions not on their turn e.g. commander's strike.

Oct 18, 2009 -- 7:50PM, Attrebus wrote:

Player to DM: "Can I use an action point while dazed?"

DM: "You sure can."

Player: "Cool I use an action point and attack again."

DM: "Hah sucked in you just wasted your action point because even though you can use it, you can't use the standard action from it while dazed."

If your DM acts like a wanker, your DM is a wanker.  The DM should do their best to make sure you understand the implications of what you're doing.

A Dazed player can attack if a Warlord lets them via Commanders Strike, so why is it so implausible that using an action point will let someone use an extra Standard action while dazed?

Because that's the way the rules are written.  I would agree it was probably not intended to work out this way.  It's a bug/feature.

Oct 19, 2009 -- 3:26AM, Dewi wrote:

 

Because that's the way the rules are written.  I would agree it was probably not intended to work out this way.  It's a bug/feature.

That's the way you interpret the rules to be written. Many of us interpret it the other way. Personally, the only rules I see that limit your ability to takes an extra action from an action point are the abilities that allow you to do something in place of said extra action. Nowhere in it's description does dazed limit action points.

Oct 19, 2009 -- 3:26AM, Dewi wrote:

If your DM acts like a wanker, your DM is a wanker.  The DM should do their best to make sure you understand the implications of what you're doing.

I agree, but that's a slightly exaggerated example of the stance being taken.

Because that's the way the rules are written.  I would agree it was probably not intended to work out this way.  It's a bug/feature.

I think it is supposed to work that way. Because you can also use Knights Move to let a Dazed ally move, then Commander's Strike to let them attack. So there are many examples of a dazed character being able to take multiple actions outside the dazed limitations. Neither of which you can do to a stunned ally because it's explicitly prohibited. 

My point is that these other things do allow dazed characters more actions while dazed, so why can't an action point?

Oct 19, 2009 -- 3:46AM, Attrebus wrote:

Because that's the way the rules are written.  I would agree it was probably not intended to work out this way.  It's a bug/feature.

I think it is supposed to work that way. Because you can also use Knights Move to let a Dazed ally move, then Commander's Strike to let them attack. So there are many examples of a dazed character being able to take multiple actions outside the dazed limitations. Neither of which you can do to a stunned ally because it's explicitly prohibited. 

My point is that these other things do allow dazed characters more actions while dazed, so why can't an action point?

It may come down to different philosophies of interpreting the rules.  I'm aiming to see what the rules actually say IMHO etc.  As opposed to what I think the rules were intended to say, what they would say if they had made sense, etc etc.  Imagine reading the rules as if you're the WotC proof-reader for the rulebook, trying to see what the rules actually do, as opposed to what the writer thought the rules would do.  (Or else as a computer programmer trying to check a script has no bugs, or at the other end of the spectrum a literary critic trying to see past what she expects the poem to say to what the poem actually says.)  I'm not saying your approach is wrong, but I think there are good reasons for mine.

So taking that approach... it seems to me that the rules work out that you can't take an action from an action point but can benefit from a knight's move if dazed (IMHO etc).  (Commander's Strike is an interesting one because nothing in the text says that the ally uses any kind of action at all.  As written, a stunned ally can take the melee basic.  That needs errata - it should say 'as a free action'.)  If that doesn't make sense, you can house rule and suggest that it needs errata on the errata page.

That said, I can think of a justification.  If you're dazed presumably that means you're not thinking clearly or something similar.  So it's difficult for you to do things on your own initiative.  But you can follow instructions from a warlord, who is trained to get people to do things above and beyond what they thought they could.

Oct 20, 2009 -- 3:38AM, Dewi wrote:

 

That said, I can think of a justification.  If you're dazed presumably that means you're not thinking clearly or something similar.  So it's difficult for you to do things on your own initiative.  But you can follow instructions from a warlord, who is trained to get people to do things above and beyond what they thought they could.

 

At the same time, a similar justification could work for the action point. Spending the action point could be viewed as heroically clearing your head for a moment to take that extra action.

Just sayin'

So you guys let characters act while dominated  by using AP ? If you carefully look at Dominate, the creatures control only a single action of yours. So you let people take extra actions while dominated humm... that doesn't make sense to me at all...

Oct 21, 2009 -- 1:45PM, Plaguescarred wrote:

So you guys let characters act while dominated  by using AP ?

From the forum FAQ (if desired): "Can you take free actions while dominated? The consensus seems to be that the player gets to make no decisions while dominated. Probably best to just avoid free actions entirely. Discussed here. Also note that the PHB FAQ states: "Can I spend the action points of a creature that I'm dominating? No. While a creature is dominated by you, you can use its at-will powers only."

fwiw: if you allow PC's to direct their own free actions while dominated they could still do other things like drop their weapon, converse with their allies, etc... so even without action points it can still be an issue.

K that's what i was thinking too...

Oct 20, 2009 -- 8:23AM, miracleofmagick wrote:

 
(sic) Spending the action point could be viewed as heroically clearing your head for a moment to take that extra action.

That's how I decided to play it after originally not letting it b spent.  The players made a good description by explaining it that way.  Spending an AP lets you do something beyond heroic.

You assert your will in a last desperate attempt to do some good while being mind slimed.

Yeah, exactly there is a Dev post somewhere about Daze and AP. Possibly might be in the CS help chart thing. Basically the AP is something beyond the norm, it breaks for a brief instant through daze allowing you do something beyond normal.

Oct 20, 2009 -- 8:23AM, miracleofmagick wrote:

At the same time, a similar justification could work for the action point. Spending the action point could be viewed as heroically clearing your head for a moment to take that extra action.

I'm not disagreeing.

Also, if the PCs can use action points for extra actions while dazed, so can monsters that have action points.  Monsters that have action points are usually elites or solos, and anything that stops lockdowns of elites/solos is good.  So there are lots of reasons for allowing extra actions while dazed.

I think the difference between us is really just that I think the rules as written could benefit from an erratum and you think they're fine as they are.

Oct 22, 2009 -- 6:03AM, Dewi wrote:

Oct 20, 2009 -- 8:23AM, miracleofmagick wrote:

At the same time, a similar justification could work for the action point. Spending the action point could be viewed as heroically clearing your head for a moment to take that extra action.

I'm not disagreeing.

Also, if the PCs can use action points for extra actions while dazed, so can monsters that have action points.  Monsters that have action points are usually elites or solos, and anything that stops lockdowns of elites/solos is good.  So there are lots of reasons for allowing extra actions while dazed.

I think the difference between us is really just that I think the rules as written could benefit from an erratum and you think they're fine as they are.

I agree, monsters with AP's can use them while dazed.

Normal round: you are only ALLOWED to take 3 actions (not counting free actions)

Dazed round: you are only ALLOWED to take 1 action (not counting free actions)

Action Point: You MAY take one action past your normally ALLOWED actions this turn.

Seems pretty cut and dry to me, APs work when dazed.  Any DM not allowing this needs to take a closer look at the point of the game....and the point is to have fun playing HEROIC characters, not losers.

Concerning RAI and the capacity to do other things and gain other benefits from action points besides just straight up taking another action, it's worth noting this.

You get an extra benefit if you've got a Warlord in the party.  Or if you're Paragon tier or higher and can run something off of your PP "action point feature".  Or if you have a certain power or feat or magic item.

Except that those are all specific things.  And one of the design goals of this edition is that nothing is necessary.  You no longer have to have a Cleric in the party, and you don't even have to have a Leader period.  And other aspects of this edition are designed in like manner.

So saying that the FAQ answer "You may take free actions while dazed" is intended to mean that you gain an extra action that you can't take and that you're supposed to do that because of a Warlord or PP or magic item benefit instead is in direct contradiction to that design goal.  Never mind that the ambiguity allows for either interpretation anyway.

I would like to repost a previous post I had made in this thread.  Suo made a very good claim against it, but I still feel it is relevant.

Oct 15, 2009 -- 4:52PM, TheNative wrote:

My interpretation:

Since spending an action point is a free action, every benefit gained by said free action is also a free action.  This is to say, the action point having a definition of free action, makes the spending of that extra gained (standard/move/minor) also a free action.  This would allow it to be utilized while dazed, but not while stunned.

Now, before you all get angry at me, I have a reason in which I believe this.  As a wizard, I frequently use Mordenkainen's Sword (PHB 163).  It is a level 9 daily, standard action.  It has a sustain minor component to it.  Thus, when I sustain the sword, it grants itself a repeat of the standard action with all of the modifiers I previously added to it.  Thus, my spending a minor action, grants a resulting standard action.  Because the sword states exactly what this might be used for, it can only be used for that one reason.  But, since it might be argued that the sword is its own entitity, I shall counter that the sword still uses all of my modifiers as the conjuring wizard.  Thus, it is not its own entity, but still tied in to my actions and my modifiers.  In fact, I can spend a move action to grant the sword movement.  Hence, I posit the argument, that the resulting action takes the form of the action that was utilized to spend it, whether that be a minor action granting what would otherwise be a standard action, but done in the place of a minor action, or in the case of an action point, a free action granting a standard, et al. action, taking the form of a free action.

I apologize if I am unclear. 

-TheNative

 

Jul 11, 2011 -- 7:05AM, boardsofgames wrote:

Hi, this ''dazed vs AP'' came up on our session yesterday, have we got an official answer from someone yet?

Yes. The official PHB FAQ was updated with the underlined portion:
"29. Can I spend an action point while I'm dazed? Yes, you can spend an action point to take another action while dazed. Using an action point is a free action, and you can take free actions while you're dazed."