|
4 years ago ::
Oct 16, 2009 - 12:36PM
#151
|
|
|
"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.
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.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Oct 16, 2009 - 12:49PM
#152
|
Date Joined:
Aug 25, 2008
|
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:
"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:
"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?
"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.
What makes me sad - no more compiled magazines: http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/27580349/Dungeon_and_Dragon_Magazine_PDFs&post_num=24#495423645
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Oct 16, 2009 - 1:24PM
#153
|
Date Joined:
Apr 22, 2009
|
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.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Oct 16, 2009 - 1:30PM
#154
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Oct 16, 2009 - 1:32PM
#155
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Oct 16, 2009 - 1:38PM
#156
|
Date Joined:
Apr 22, 2009
|
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.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Oct 16, 2009 - 2:22PM
#157
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Oct 16, 2009 - 3:44PM
#158
|
Date Joined:
Sep 29, 2008
|
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.
Hoard: may earn you gp; Horde: may earn you xp.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Oct 16, 2009 - 3:57PM
#159
|
Date Joined:
Sep 29, 2008
|
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.
Hoard: may earn you gp; Horde: may earn you xp.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Oct 16, 2009 - 4:55PM
#160
|
|
|
[
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
|
|
|
