My group recently ran into a situation where a PC was immobilized due to being poisoned by a creature with neuroparalytic venom. The question that came up is that, per RAW, a character with this status effect cannot use maneuvers, yet (very) oddly, can still take actions. That they can still act makes no sense to me, and seems to be an oversight on the part of the devs. Am I missing something?

You could point a gun already in your hands and fire it. But you can't aim it? If you can't move enough to pull a grenade off of your vest, or aim, you shouldn't be able to fire, either ... unless your gun was already pointed at your target (more or less) since you can't move your arms to shift aim. Whether you can even curl your index finger is arguable. Have any of you had this situation crop up in your games? How did you handle it? (I'm inclined to rule that you can't take physical actions, either, and the affected player doesn't disagree.)

Basically this. About 25 seconds into the video.

Boba has Luke tied up, and effectively Immobilized. But he's still able to swing his saber to deflect a blaster shot, and cut his bindings. Thus, this, in my opinion if it was my table, is why you can still take an action, but not a maneuver

I think what you wanted was another effect, Paralysed. Immobilised is given by things like Ensnare - binding foe and restricting their movements.

The Neuroparalytic Poison in the book instead Stuns for 3 rounds, and as Stunned means Staggers would imply no Actions.

Just now, Darzil said:

I think what you wanted was another effect, Paralysed. Immobilised is given by things like Ensnare - binding foe and restricting their movements.

Yeah, this sounds more along the lines of a neurotoxin. Might want to double check the effect descriptions to make sure you are picking the correct one?

36 minutes ago, Darzil said:

I think what you wanted was another effect, Paralysed. Immobilised is given by things like Ensnare - binding foe and restricting their movements.

The Neuroparalytic Poison in the book instead Stuns for 3 rounds, and as Stunned means Staggers would imply no Actions.

In the AoR book, the poison Immobilizes, not Stuns (Staggered). Exact same poison, different effects depending on which CRB you're reading. The EotE version prevents actions, but not maneuvers (so you can still wave that glowstick around). The AoR version is more problematic, because it blocks maneuvers, but not actions.

Where is the Paralyzed effect defined in the RAW?

It isn't

You're trying to reconcile the literal definition of the word with the game definition. Just don't. The game says it does what it does, leave it at that and move on.

12 minutes ago, 2P51 said:

You're trying to reconcile the literal definition of the word with the game definition. Just don't. The game says it does what it does, leave it at that and move on.

Sorry, but that's not at all a helpful answer, to either myself, or the player on whose behalf I'm inquiring. Also, the game has conflicting rules. In one book it says one thing, and in another book it says something completely different. So even if I were to take the rules as gospel, which gospel is "canon", as they cannot both be valid (unless the poison applies both Stun and Immobilization)?

56 minutes ago, ShadoWarrior said:

In the AoR book, the poison Immobilizes, not Stuns (Staggered). Exact same poison, different effects depending on which CRB you're reading. The EotE version prevents actions, but not maneuvers (so you can still wave that glowstick around). The AoR version is more problematic, because it blocks maneuvers, but not actions.

Where is the Paralyzed effect defined in the RAW?

If the same poison has 2 different effects in print, then I would say you should check the errata. This could simply be a mistake on the print side of things.

I can't answer which it should be, only how I would roleplay out your initial question, which was "how you could have something immobilize you, but you can still do actions." Aside from the clip I linked as example, I can think of plenty of examples from movies, of someone who is either too injured, drugged, or exhausted to move, but is able to still try a last ditch action to defend themselves. That's how I would rule on a poison that prevents you from moving, but not acting. Say it mostly effects the legs, rather than the entire body, so they are unable to make their legs move well enough to move, but they can still try and point a weapon or fiddle with controls on a panel.

There's game precedent for additional effects on an individual item like Bolas. In regards to an answer when you encounter conflicting notions in a game, that's what GMs are for, be a GM. Make a decision, and move on.

You're not going to like it, but the answer is....

The AoR and FaD both say immobilized, which is a condition, and EotE says "stunned" which is not a condition. So stunned is likely just a bug, like the mention of the Surveillance skill.

Moving on...

The paralytic in the core is just not a very powerful one. It keeps you from moving much, but not totally. It can inflict strain, which if it inflicted enough to exceed your Strain threshold would mechanically be close enough to paralized to work within a narrative.

There are other poisons in books like Lord's of Nal Hutta that are probably more like what you are looking for. One in perticular Staggers the target with a possibility to also Immobilize.

You probably won't like that much as there's no "boom, you can't move at all" option as even a Staggered and Immobilized character can still take incidentals ("I can still Reflect and Parry! Ha ha!") but remember it's a game and a movie simulator and having a method to just totally shut a player or major opponent down in one shot is a recipe for disaster.

As is the Martial artist can Stagger and Immobilize almost any opponent in three hits (not to mention go full iron fist and punch holes in tanks with the right build). Do we really need to allow anyone to do that?

3 minutes ago, Ghostofman said:

You're not going to like it, but the answer is....

The AoR and FaD both say immobilized, which is a condition, and EotE says "stunned" which is not a condition. So stunned is likely just a bug, like the mention of the Surveillance skill.

They probably meant to say "Staggered" which is a condition. And not the same one that is in the AoR/FaD versions. The AoR version is likely correct, and they just never bothered to errata the EotE description.

Likely.

Bottom line is the paralytic in the core books are probably intended for use on medium sized animals, not people.

Well, the AoR book Onslaught at Arda I has creatures attacking the PCs with precisely this poison (and not the other way around).

Given that in the real world, one loses fine motor control (IOW, use of one's fingers) before you lose the ability to move your arms completely, you'd pretty much lose actions before you'd lose maneuvers. But that's not how this magical poison seems to work per RAW. You lose major movement first, then small movement. In my game I applied both Staggered and Immobilized as the effects of the poison, because I simply cannot go with "it's a game, just go with the rules however they're written".

35 minutes ago, KungFuFerret said:

If the same poison has 2 different effects in print, then I would say you should check the errata. This could simply be a mistake on the print side of things.

Errata for Edge of Empire Core Rulebook does indeed say:

Page 172
In the Synthetic Standard Strength Neuroparalytic entry, “Stuns” should be “immobilizes.”

7 minutes ago, Darzil said:

Errata for Edge of Empire Core Rulebook does indeed say:

Page 172
In the Synthetic Standard Strength Neuroparalytic entry, “Stuns” should be “immobilizes.”

Well there you go, book errata says immobilizes. So, OP, since you want to know the RAW about this, that's your answer. If that's still unsatisfactory for you, well, then just do whatever you see fit.

1 hour ago, ShadoWarrior said:

Sorry, but that's not at all a helpful answer, to either myself, or the player on whose behalf I'm inquiring. Also, the game has conflicting rules. In one book it says one thing, and in another book it says something completely different. So even if I were to take the rules as gospel, which gospel is "canon", as they cannot both be valid (unless the poison applies both Stun and Immobilization)?

Per devs, in many locations (written and spoken) the gospel rule is the rule written most recently, someplace they also said that rules will be errata'd (errata incorporated) in newer printings. So if you go and buy a EotE book that was printed yesterday it may have all the rules already changed to the new errata.

So basically look at the print date in the front of the book and whichever one is the newest printing that is the ruling you use.

A character completely unable to act but not injured would be one who has exceeded their Strain Threshold. Disoriented, Staggered and Immobilised are all conditions that can be used to simulate a character getting closer to that, but they also simulate other things as well such as being tied up. You sound like you made a decision during the session that made sense to the situation, and that decision is great. Trying to explain why a toxin stops you moving but not acting is not a good idea, your much betted coming up with a narrative that fits the situation and then deciding on the mechanics of that afterwards.

Myself in that situation, I may have provided unique limitations, "Your body cramps up in pain, muscles contracting as the toxin takes hold, moving any significant distance is almost impossible and all actions will suffer 2 setback" effectively immobilised and a more sever form of Disoriented.

The poor character that was poisoned (the unlucky sap who almost always goes down in every fight) is the team's medic. At the time he had no weapon in his hand(s), as he'd just finished applying stims to other characters. The moment he was immobilized he was screwed anyway, usable actions or not, since without maneuvers (or Force powers) he wasn't going to be able to do anything except talk.

He needs the Quick Draw talent as all good medics do or at least a better Resilience.

Just remember the trick about rules.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jl0hMfqNQ-g

Immobilized might cover a broad range of situations, from poisoned, stuck in quick sand, ensnared by a bounty hunter who's about to go out like a b!tch, jedi mind tricked, shackled to a wall, etc etc etc. Ask what the character wants to do, and make a judgement call. If the poison doesn't make them completely paralyzed, then maybe require them to make a coordination check in order to move well enough to do something that seems reasonable (no backflips through a window).

Speaking as a player who had an extremely harshly-interpreted "Immobilized" status handed down on his character (I won't say who!), preventing your player from taking any actions can be highly overpowered compared to what the immobilized status is supposed to be. My advice would be to work with your players and let them try and be creative as to how they see themselves acting through the "immobilized" status. They definitely can't draw weapons, move around the battlefield, or take the aim maneuver, but this doesn't necessarily mean they are completely paralyzed. That would be staggered and immobilized.

So...yeah, just be careful you're not interpreting it too harshly.

The player that got paralyzed from the neck down didn't mind. He thought it was a good ruling. Especially since he knew that I chose that result rather than a second hit (other claw) that would have pushed him over WT, putting him out of the battle and also inflicted a critical. Compared to how I could have interpreted the dice he knew he was getting off easy.

Totally. I love the narrative dice for the options they give you. They make it easy to balance the ongoing encounter, giving the GM options while simultaneously not making victory seem too cheap.

Myself, I would lean towards trying to figure out how a heroic character could momentarily fight through a neuroparalyitic poison, especially since it doesn't mechanically preclude actions (same as being Force-gripped), and so that is where my advice is coming from. I geek out over finding ways to mesh the narrative with the mechanics...it's like a personal challenge for me

But if the group is having fun, then that's quite literally all that matters.

Immobilized is the game term for "cannot use maneuvers" and I'd focus on the effect rather than the name. Maneuvers are defined (iirc) as things which aren't consequential enough to need a skill check. To me, not being able to take maneuvers means anything the character does is consequential enough to need a skill check. Want to draw that gun while you're tied up? Make a coordination check to access it. Want to move to somewhere in short range? Make a resilience check to fight through the poison's effects. That type of thing.