Here’s something that came up in my game, I’ll tell you how and why I ruled it a certain way, and then I’d love to get your responses and ideas about it.
One of the PC’s in my game because dazed. Now dazed limits you to one action: either a standard a move or a minor. You can also take free actions. After the player took his action, he decided he was going to use one of his action points to take a second action, since the action point grants him the use of another action.
I ruled no, that he could not. Why? Because in my opinion, the dazed condition specifically says that dazed limits the actions available to the player to one, and an action point is not a cure for dazed, a saving throw at the end of your turn is. If one of his allies had given him a saving throw in the middle of his turn, and he would have made it, then he definitely could have used his action point. Otherwise no.
He then argued that the game is excepetion rules based, and the action point is an excepetion rule to the dazed condition. I said that on the contrary, the dazed condition is the exception rule to the action point mechanic.
So DM’s, where do you stand on this? Has it come up in your games? We could find no answers online, only forum arguments either way. There seems to be no clear ruling on this.
How would you judge it?