Feign Death, Incapacitation, and Cheese

[Easy_Lee]

Took a look at the spell feign death, since I really enjoyed the concept, and noticed a few funny things.


A caster could cast it on himself as a held action in response to damage, but could not end the effect on himself because it renders the target incapacitated.
Incapacitation does not allow the person to take actions or reactions.
Incapacitation doesn't say anything about bonus actions, object interaction, or movement.

So a sorcerer could have feign death cast on him, appear dead for all intents and purposes, but still be able to quicken spells, pull levers, use healing kits, and so on. Feign Death renders the target deaf and blind, but there are ways to acquire tremorsense and the like to get around that.

Looking at the conditions, this seems to actually be the intent since Incapacitation is listed as a part of several other conditions (stunned, paralyzed, and unconscious). Also, an incapacitated target loses concentration on spells, but feign death doesn't require concentration.

Pretty cool, right? This one spell could conceivably allow a sorcerer or other bonus action caster take out an entire legion of undead who would have no idea that he wasn't really a corpse.

I call it As Gouda As Dead.

[pwykersotz]

I'm pretty certain incapacitation stops bonus actions, but I'm unable to parse the book closely at this time. If it doesn't, well done, that is some game-altering stinky cheese right there.

[Ninja_Prawn]

I too was wondering why incapacitation doesn't stop bonus actions. The way it's written makes it sound like a deliberate design choice, but it doesn't make any sense.

[Easy_Lee]

I'm pretty certain incapacitation stops bonus actions, but I'm unable to parse the book closely at this time. If it doesn't, well done, that is some game-altering stinky cheese right there.

It ought to prevent actions, bonus actions, reactions, and movement. But it oddly does not, meaning that bonus actions and movement are even possible while unconscious by RAW. See the free PDF as it contains conditions.

[-Jynx-]

Queue images of a limp body with lasers shooting out of it.

[pwykersotz]

It ought to prevent actions, bonus actions, reactions, and movement. But it oddly does not, meaning that bonus actions and movement are even possible while unconscious by RAW. See the free PDF as it contains conditions.

As well as Petrification and Paralyzation. I'm thinking there's a rules interaction that's been missed somewhere that specifies that Bonus Actions count for the "actions" restricted in those cases. Or else the RAW just isn't very tight on it. Either way, it's amusing. :smallbiggrin:

[Shaofoo]

Page 189 of the PHB:

Anything that deprives you of an action also deprives you of a bonus action.

Also the spell Feign Death specifically says that your speed is set to 0 so you can't do any movement.

False alarm guys, no cheese to be found here. You must look elsewhere to do your comatose sorcerer pewpew.

[Easy_Lee]

Page 189 of the PHB:

Anything that deprives you of an action also deprives you of a bonus action.

Also the spell Feign Death specifically says that your speed is set to 0 so you can't do any movement.

False alarm guys, no cheese to be found here. You must look elsewhere to do your comatose sorcerer pewpew.

Ah, good catch, just object interaction then.

[pwykersotz]

Page 189 of the PHB:

Anything that deprives you of an action also deprives you of a bonus action.

Also the spell Feign Death specifically says that your speed is set to 0 so you can't do any movement.

False alarm guys, no cheese to be found here. You must look elsewhere to do your comatose sorcerer pewpew.

Ah, good find!

[Ninja_Prawn]

Ah, good catch, just object interaction then.

Villain: "you can incapacitate me all you like... I'll still take you down with me!" *presses self-destruct button*

[Shining Wrath]

I think a bonus action is subsumed in "action". The word action, after all, is right there in the name.

EDIT: Assassin Rogue'd. PHB quote is definitive.

And Item Interaction can be done as part of your move, or as part of your action; I'm thinking it would take a generous and helpful DM to let you manipulate an item when incapacitated and incapable of either movement or action.

[pwykersotz]

Ah, good catch, just object interaction then.

I think object interaction is closed. It says you can use an object interaction for free during your movement or action. And for Feign Death, speed drops to 0, so no movement.

Edit: Shadow Monk'd!

[Ruslan]

Ah, good catch, just object interaction then.

No, not really. Here's what the PHB has to tell us about Use An Object:


You normally interact with an object while doing
something else, such as when you draw a sword as part
of an attack. When an object requires your action for
its use, you take the Use an Object action.
So, there are basically only 2 ways to interact with an object:
1. As part of another Action (draw a sword while attacking with it, open a door while walking through it, etc)
2. As an independent Use an Object Action.

If you can't take Actions, you can't do neither (1) nor (2).

[Easy_Lee]

No, not really. Here's what the PHB has to tell us about Use An Object:


So, there are basically only 2 ways to interact with an object:
1. As part of another Action (draw a sword while attacking with it, open a door while walking through it, etc)
2. As an independent Use an Object Action.

If you can't take Actions, you can't do neither (1) nor (2).

Probably fair. I'll chalk it up to another instance where the intent is clear but the developers failed to write what they actually mean in a clear, concise way.

[Xetheral]

Page 189 of the PHB:

Anything that deprives you of an action also deprives you of a bonus action.

Also the spell Feign Death specifically says that your speed is set to 0 so you can't do any movement.

False alarm guys, no cheese to be found here. You must look elsewhere to do your comatose sorcerer pewpew.

That wording doesn't stop something similar with the "One with Shadows" warlock invocation. You *can* still take an action, so page 189 doesn't apply, and thus you can still take bonus actions. Bonus actions, conveniently, don't break the invocation-granted invisibility, even if you attack or cast a spell with it.

[Demonic Spoon]

Probably fair. I'll chalk it up to another instance where the intent is clear but the developers failed to write what they actually mean in a clear, concise way.


They don't need to. Literally no one is going to read the Feign Death rules and honestly think that the intent was that you could move, take bonus actions, or interact with stuff. At best they might not remember the specific rules in the Combat section and think that they found an amusing hole in the rules as you did.

Spelling it out explicitly is a waste of page space, which is limited. It's better for the book to be filled with actual content.

[Easy_Lee]

They don't need to. Literally no one is going to read the Feign Death rules and honestly think that the intent was that you could move, take bonus actions, or interact with stuff. At best they might not remember the specific rules in the Combat section and think that they found an amusing hole in the rules as you did.

Spelling it out explicitly is a waste of page space, which is limited. It's better for the book to be filled with actual content.

I wasn't talking about feign death, I was talking about incapacitate. It only says actions and reactions, so you have to look elsewhere to find that this is intended to include bonus actions and movement.

In contrast, opinions like the one you just posted are what leads to actual rules confusion, such as over reaction timing.

[Demonic Spoon]

I wasn't talking about feign death, I was talking about incapacitate. It only says actions and reactions, so you have to look elsewhere to find that this is intended to include bonus actions and movement.

In contrast, opinions like the one you just posted are what leads to actual rules confusion, such as over reaction timing.

There are definitely cases where the tendency to rely on a "common sense" reading of the rules causes confusion - crossbow expert, most of the rules regarding free hands, hiding, and sneak attack (turn vs round) are plain evidence of that. Reaction timing was another, which I assume is why the DMG had a section on adjudicating timing.

I just don't think that this is an example of that at all. Even if there was absolutely nothing in the PHB about the 'incapacitated' condition preventing you from using bonus actions, would you really think that being able to perform bonus actions under feign death (or other effect that causes incapacitated) was RAI? Would any sane DM allow that at their table? It's abundantly clear what the spell is supposed to represent.

Having concise rules has benefits, including making it easier to look up the non-obvious rules, allowing more content in the same number of pages (the 5e PHB has way more stuff than the 3.5e equivalent), and allowing new players to learn the system without making them feel like they're reading a textbook. The ideal balance is managing to do the latter without causing confusion over specific rules

[Easy_Lee]

Having concise rules has benefits, including making it easier to look up the non-obvious rules, allowing more content in the same number of pages (the 5e PHB has way more stuff than the 3.5e equivalent), and allowing new players to learn the system without making them feel like they're reading a textbook. The ideal balance is managing to do the latter without causing confusion over specific rules

Except that the rules aren't concise. As shown above, incapacitate does indeed prevent movement and bonus actions, but the text that says so was in paragraph form in a completely different part of the book. There's no need for that.

[Malifice]

As well as Petrification and Paralyzation.

The inability to move or speak hurts. Not being aware of your surroundings when petrified also puts a damper on things.

[Shaofoo]

Except that the rules aren't concise. As shown above, incapacitate does indeed prevent movement and bonus actions, but the text that says so was in paragraph form in a completely different part of the book. There's no need for that.

Actually incapacitate doesn't prevent movement, feign death effect prevents movement by lowering your speed to 0.

If you are just incapacitated you can't take any actions but you can move.

[Malifice]

If you are just incapacitated you can't take any actions but you can move.

Really weird.

You can walk at 5' a second but you cant kick someone.

[Easy_Lee]

Actually incapacitate doesn't prevent movement, feign death effect prevents movement by lowering your speed to 0.

If you are just incapacitated you can't take any actions but you can move.

Exactly. So incapacitate doesn't actually prevent movement, even though we assumed that it did and most of use would rule that way. Confusing, isn't it?

[Demonic Spoon]

Except that the rules aren't concise. As shown above, incapacitate does indeed prevent movement and bonus actions, but the text that says so was in paragraph form in a completely different part of the book. There's no need for that.


The way it is currently means that it only needs to be stated once in the general rules rather than for each possible thing in the book that could make you lose the ability to act.

[Ashrym]

People might be confusing incapacitated with unconscious.

Incapacitated usually goes hand in hand with something else that prevents movement (like unconscious or stunned) so it's usually true that movement is also lost.

[Noldo]

Is there any instance in the rules where one is capable of taking a Bonus Action but incapable of taking any other type of Action or is approach "cannot take an action" = "cannot take any type of Action (including Bonus Action)" sensible and natural ruling once you do not read to rulebook like a common law contract?

[Xetheral]

Is there any instance in the rules where one is capable of taking a Bonus Action but incapable of taking any other type of Action or is approach "cannot take an action" = "cannot take any type of Action (including Bonus Action)" sensible and natural ruling once you do not read to rulebook like a common law contract?

It's *a* sensible ruling, but it's not the only one. D&D has many examples of effects that prevent you from taking high level action while leaving you the ability to take smaller actions. For example, in 3.5, being slowed prevented you from taking full-round actions and limited your ability to take standard actions, but left swift actions (analogous to 5e's bonus actions) unaffected.

[Noldo]

It's *a* sensible ruling, but it's not the only one. D&D has many examples of effects that prevent you from taking high level action while leaving you the ability to take smaller actions. For example, in 3.5, being slowed prevented you from taking full-round actions and limited your ability to take standard actions, but left swift actions (analogous to 5e's bonus actions) unaffected.

In case of 5e, it appears to be only possible ruling, considering the PHB quote by Shaofoo. In that light it would make more sense not to explicitly mention "Action or Bonus Action" everywhere, but instead use plain English approach of using "action" (which by definition include any actions). But moving from 3.x's very legalistic approach (which, however, was quite poorly executed) to 5e's more natural approach (which naturally results in more ambiguous rules).

[Xetheral]

In case of 5e, it appears to be only possible ruling, considering the PHB quote by Shaofoo. In that light it would make more sense not to explicitly mention "Action or Bonus Action" everywhere, but instead use plain English approach of using "action" (which by definition include any actions). But moving from 3.x's very legalistic approach (which, however, was quite poorly executed) to 5e's more natural approach (which naturally results in more ambiguous rules).

Just how far 5e has gone in the "natural language" direction is open for debate. There are numerous threads where people argue whether language that appears to be natural is instead an implicitly-defined game term. If anything there is more confusion and disagreement about the wording than ever before.

[ImSAMazing]

Took a look at the spell feign death, since I really enjoyed the concept, and noticed a few funny things.


A caster could cast it on himself as a held action in response to damage, but could not end the effect on himself because it renders the target incapacitated.
Incapacitation does not allow the person to take actions or reactions.
Incapacitation doesn't say anything about bonus actions, object interaction, or movement.

So a sorcerer could have feign death cast on him, appear dead for all intents and purposes, but still be able to quicken spells, pull levers, use healing kits, and so on. Feign Death renders the target deaf and blind, but there are ways to acquire tremorsense and the like to get around that.

Looking at the conditions, this seems to actually be the intent since Incapacitation is listed as a part of several other conditions (stunned, paralyzed, and unconscious). Also, an incapacitated target loses concentration on spells, but feign death doesn't require concentration.

Pretty cool, right? This one spell could conceivably allow a sorcerer or other bonus action caster take out an entire legion of undead who would have no idea that he wasn't really a corpse.

I call it As Gouda As Dead.
Wow. you just broke the game.