Community

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.

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.

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?

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.