How do paralyze/stun and foresight interact? - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Logain08 Apr 28, 2015 5:57:06	Hello everyone, Foresight grants the person it is cast on advantege on all attack rolls, ability checks and saving throws for 8 hours. It also gives attackers disadvantage on attack rolls against the character buffed with foresight. Hold person (and any effect that stuns or paralyzes really) incapacites a character. If that character was concentrating on a spell, he would lose it, but foresight does not require concentration. Does this mean that a character buffed with foresight, but paralyzed or stunned through some means (e.g. if someone succeeds in casting hold person) still retains the benefits of foresight when incapacitated? So the advantage of attacking a paralyzed or stunned target is offset by the disadvantage that foresight imposes on attackers? This seems to me to be the RAW interpretation of how this works, but it also seems rather weird as well. "Hey, I am buffed with foresight and even though I am paralyzed and cannot really do anything except stare into space, my attackers still do not get any bonuses for attacking me!" This is especially strange when you look at the description of foresight which seems to grant the character a slight ability to look into the future in order to anticipate incoming events. But even if you can look slightly into the future, how can you benefit from this knowledge if you can't move or react in any meaningful way? I am puzzled by this and would like to hear what other people have to say on the matter. If I am wrong about something, please tell me! Thanks in advance!
#2 mellored Apr 28, 2015 6:06:25	Does this mean that a character buffed with foresight, but paralyzed or stunned through some means (e.g. if someone succeeds in casting hold person) still retains the benefits of foresight when incapacitated? So the advantage of attacking a paralyzed or stunned target is offset by the disadvantage that foresight imposes on attackers?
#3 Logain08 Apr 28, 2015 6:15:00	I am not the DM of our group, so I don't get to rule anything :-) But it just seems like an odd interaction. You have to go through some serious logical leaps if you want to justify foresight remaining effective even if you can't move, as in the case of paralysis. To me this seems nonsensical, but it is what the rules imply, quite clearly actually. Suppose my character has the benefits of foresight but is paralyzed. He still retains his ability to see into the future in a limited way. So my character has some idea of where the blows of the enemy are coming from. But lo and behold, he cannot move so he should be incapable of reacting to these incoming blows. Positioning yourself in such a way as to deal with incoming blows before you were paralyzed seems a rather weird way of explaining the interaction. The reason why attackers get advantage on paralyzed targets is because they cannot move nor react. But I guess this is all a pretty minor issue :-)
#4 jaelis Apr 28, 2015 6:20:50	If you just want someone to agree that it doesn't make sense, then sure, I agree. But as written the mechanics are clear. If you want to keep the mechanics but make it make sense, then Mello's suggestions are pretty good for some cases. Or you could just say that foresight grants you good luck as well. Or change the mechanics to have it not work while you are incapacitated.
#5 Logain08 Apr 28, 2015 6:25:09	I don't get to change anything. But the rules are pretty clear it seems. I hoped I was missing something :-) No advantage for attackers it is then!
#6 Kentus Apr 28, 2015 9:34:19	Logain08 wrote:
(Reply to #6) Logain08	Kentus wrote:
#8 RulesJD Apr 28, 2015 14:21:08	Logain08 wrote:
#9 jaelis Apr 28, 2015 14:39:23	The rules say it does: The following factors can break concentration: ... • Being incapacitated or killed. You lose concentration on a spell if you are incapacitated or if you die.
(Reply to #8) AaronOfBarbaria	RulesJD wrote:
#11 RulesJD Apr 28, 2015 14:42:54	jaelis wrote:
#12 Danny_Montanny Apr 29, 2015 5:43:30	"Because Magic" is the only real answer you need.
(Reply to #12) Logain08	Danny_Montanny wrote:

Post/Author/DateTime

Post

Logain08

Apr 28, 2015 5:57:06

Hello everyone,

Foresight grants the person it is cast on advantege on all attack rolls, ability checks and saving throws for 8 hours. It also gives attackers disadvantage on attack rolls against the character buffed with foresight. Hold person (and any effect that stuns or paralyzes really) incapacites a character. If that character was concentrating on a spell, he would lose it, but foresight does not require concentration.

Does this mean that a character buffed with foresight, but paralyzed or stunned through some means (e.g. if someone succeeds in casting hold person) still retains the benefits of foresight when incapacitated? So the advantage of attacking a paralyzed or stunned target is offset by the disadvantage that foresight imposes on attackers?

This seems to me to be the RAW interpretation of how this works, but it also seems rather weird as well. "Hey, I am buffed with foresight and even though I am paralyzed and cannot really do anything except stare into space, my attackers still do not get any bonuses for attacking me!"

This is especially strange when you look at the description of foresight which seems to grant the character a slight ability to look into the future in order to anticipate incoming events. But even if you can look slightly into the future, how can you benefit from this knowledge if you can't move or react in any meaningful way?

I am puzzled by this and would like to hear what other people have to say on the matter. If I am wrong about something, please tell me!

Thanks in advance!

mellored

Apr 28, 2015 6:06:25

Does this mean that a character buffed with foresight, but paralyzed or stunned through some means (e.g. if someone succeeds in casting hold person) still retains the benefits of foresight when incapacitated? So the advantage of attacking a paralyzed or stunned target is offset by the disadvantage that foresight imposes on attackers?

Logain08

Apr 28, 2015 6:15:00

I am not the DM of our group, so I don't get to rule anything :-) But it just seems like an odd interaction. You have to go through some serious logical leaps if you want to justify foresight remaining effective even if you can't move, as in the case of paralysis. To me this seems nonsensical, but it is what the rules imply, quite clearly actually.

Suppose my character has the benefits of foresight but is paralyzed. He still retains his ability to see into the future in a limited way. So my character has some idea of where the blows of the enemy are coming from. But lo and behold, he cannot move so he should be incapable of reacting to these incoming blows. Positioning yourself in such a way as to deal with incoming blows before you were paralyzed seems a rather weird way of explaining the interaction. The reason why attackers get advantage on paralyzed targets is because they cannot move nor react. But I guess this is all a pretty minor issue :-)

jaelis

Apr 28, 2015 6:20:50

If you just want someone to agree that it doesn't make sense, then sure, I agree. But as written the mechanics are clear. If you want to keep the mechanics but make it make sense, then Mello's suggestions are pretty good for some cases. Or you could just say that foresight grants you good luck as well.

Or change the mechanics to have it not work while you are incapacitated.

Logain08

Apr 28, 2015 6:25:09

I don't get to change anything. But the rules are pretty clear it seems. I hoped I was missing something :-) No advantage for attackers it is then!

Kentus

Apr 28, 2015 9:34:19

Logain08 wrote:

(Reply to #6)

Logain08

Kentus wrote:

RulesJD

Apr 28, 2015 14:21:08

Logain08 wrote:

jaelis

Apr 28, 2015 14:39:23

The rules say it does:

The following factors can break concentration:
...
• Being incapacitated or killed. You lose concentration on a spell if you are incapacitated or if you die.

(Reply to #8)

AaronOfBarbaria

RulesJD wrote:

#11

RulesJD

Apr 28, 2015 14:42:54

jaelis wrote:

#12

Danny_Montanny

Apr 29, 2015 5:43:30

"Because Magic" is the only real answer you need.

(Reply to #12)

Logain08

Danny_Montanny wrote: