Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

How to store wands?


Pathfinder Society® General Discussion

101 to 150 of 153 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Qadira ***

Mojorat wrote:
There is another bonus, if you ignore the whole free draw thing and just draw the wands like you would normally as a weapon like object from a scabbard. This is something you cannot do with a haversack.

I can see that.

But that means that you CAN'T do it from the haversack - something I know I've seen people do (drawing it as a "weapone like item") but then I've also seen players draw weapons from a haversack (the "silvered" back up weapon). Not saying it's RIGHT, just that it's another case of YMMV...

yeah, yeah, I know. I'm not helping here...

Qadira ***

Dragnmoon wrote:
nosig wrote:

I am guessing here Dragnmoon, but it appears that some people (judges and players) are assuming that if it lets you draw an arrow as a free action it would let you draw a wand as a free action... I guess they are getting that from the name, believing that the word "efficient" would mean it is faster maybe?

The problem with this is that the same logic could be applied to a normal quiver. saying that it lets you draw arrows as a free action, so it should let you draw wands as a free action too... it doesn't really work that way, it's not the quiver that makes drawing an arrow a free action (and different from drawing a wand etc.).

Yeah, Putting a Wand in the Quiver, gives you zero benefit, so an odd thing to have so many posts about since allowing it would do absolutely nothing.

I do have one character with a LOT of wands... and I've had one judge question how I keep them strait - that I might pull the wrong one.

He actually said something like, if I did this in his home game he would start imposing a time pen. to sort thru my wands, making it at least a full round action to find the correct one. But that in PFS he couldn't do that... Yeah PFS!


nosig wrote:
Mojorat wrote:
There is another bonus, if you ignore the whole free draw thing and just draw the wands like you would normally as a weapon like object from a scabbard. This is something you cannot do with a haversack.

I can see that.

But that means that you CAN'T do it from the haversack - something I know I've seen people do (drawing it as a "weapone like item") but then I've also seen players draw weapons from a haversack (the "silvered" back up weapon). Not saying it's RIGHT, just that it's another case of YMMV...

yeah, yeah, I know. I'm not helping here...

I am pretty sure you cant draw a wand as a weapon like object from a haversack. a haversack is an extra dimensional space with specific rules in its description i believe saying pulling an item is a move action.

Qadira ***

Mojorat wrote:
nosig wrote:
Mojorat wrote:
There is another bonus, if you ignore the whole free draw thing and just draw the wands like you would normally as a weapon like object from a scabbard. This is something you cannot do with a haversack.

I can see that.

But that means that you CAN'T do it from the haversack - something I know I've seen people do (drawing it as a "weapone like item") but then I've also seen players draw weapons from a haversack (the "silvered" back up weapon). Not saying it's RIGHT, just that it's another case of YMMV...

yeah, yeah, I know. I'm not helping here...

I am pretty sure you cant draw a wand as a weapon like object from a haversack. a haversack is an extra dimensional space with specific rules in its description i believe saying pulling an item is a move action.

Oh, Mojorat, I agree with you! What I am saying is that this is a case were some Judges and players are doing it differently. thus my statement "Not saying it's RIGHT, just that it's another case of YMMV...". Would I like us all to do it the same? That's been my point all along - and why everytime I here "not at MY table" I just sigh...

I really don't care if it's "right" or "wrong", just as long as we all do it the same way. And the best way to remove "YMMV" is to play it as the rules call it - and discuss what each of us THINK the rules say. Then we can stop "discussing" rules and get on with playing.

(gets down off of soap box now and trys to slink away... back to work)

****

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:
Diego Winterborg wrote:
I am not saying GMs that treat this differently are doing it wrong - I am saying that this is how it works at my games :)

I wish PFS GMs were more interested in trying to promote consistency (for players' sakes) instead of being so ready to stop at "my games". Yes, our first priority should be to handle our own tables. But our next priority should be to help each other come to consensus where possible in order to help provide consistent rulings where possible in order to prevent un-fun "gotcha" moments where a player changes GMs and gets something taken away from their character.

No, not everything can (or should) be determined ahead of time. But I think we could do a lot better if we just remember to think beyond our own tables.

While I agree with your sentiment about that, we all must also realize that different GMs run the game differently. Just as I will not judge on a GM who allows PCs to store a wand in an EQ, I also expect players to respect that I have a different view. Having to store your wands in a belt or pocket for a single session should not be something that will ruin either your game nor your day.

Qadira ***

Diego Winterborg wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Diego Winterborg wrote:
I am not saying GMs that treat this differently are doing it wrong - I am saying that this is how it works at my games :)

I wish PFS GMs were more interested in trying to promote consistency (for players' sakes) instead of being so ready to stop at "my games". Yes, our first priority should be to handle our own tables. But our next priority should be to help each other come to consensus where possible in order to help provide consistent rulings where possible in order to prevent un-fun "gotcha" moments where a player changes GMs and gets something taken away from their character.

No, not everything can (or should) be determined ahead of time. But I think we could do a lot better if we just remember to think beyond our own tables.

While I agree with your sentiment about that, we all must also realize that different GMs run the game differently. Just as I will not judge on a GM who allows PCs to store a wand in an EQ, I also expect players to respect that I have a different view. Having to store your wands in a belt or pocket for a single session should not be something that will ruin either your game nor your day.

When do you tell your players what differences are in place at your table? there are a LOT of areas where judges differ, everything from what skills you can (or can't) Take 10 on to what actions your PC can take that will not draw AOOs.

Where do we draw the line? If we get together here on the board, (all of us being judges), and agree that MOST of us do something one way, wouldn't it be best to do it that way for ALL of us? For ease of play, so the players understand that the rules work like XX at my table, and at your table. The more we talk about it, the better we understand the rules, the smoother games go and the less arguements we have (and more PLAYING).

I don't want to brake the flow of the game to say "that's the way it work's at THIS table, you'll have to ask if it works like that at someone elses". Do you?

****

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

I run the game with rules as written. If players venture into grey areas with their character, as this whole EQ isseu is they should consult their GM at the start of the game to have these things cleared out of the way. As far as taking 10 and AoO those rules are well described in the CRB.

When it comes to the grey aras of the game a player is a fool to make any assumptions and should consult with the GM in advance. If we are hones with ourselves we all know where the grey areas are.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Diego Winterborg wrote:

I run the game with rules as written. If players venture into grey areas with their character, as this whole EQ isseu is they should consult their GM at the start of the game to have these things cleared out of the way. As far as taking 10 and AoO those rules are well described in the CRB.

When it comes to the grey aras of the game a player is a fool to make any assumptions and should consult with the GM in advance. If we are hones with ourselves we all know where the grey areas are.

Well said, Diego. Unfortunately, some of us (including nosig, if I may speak on his behalf) have noticed that PFS GMs can have very different ideas of what is and is not a "gray area of the rules".

For instance, you mention Take 10 as being "well described" in the CRB. Yet merely a few months ago, there was a huge debate right here on this forum about when you could or could not T10. Half the people called it a gray area, and the half that thought it was clear all had varying opinions of what it "clearly" said. Some people had lists of skills that they never allowed you to T10 with, some said you could never T10 on a faction mission skill check, and one of the best of my local GMs still thinks that the possibility of failure prevents you from taking 10.

I believe (and nosig can stop me if I'm presuming too much here) that this is why nosig mentions Taking 10 all the time; especially, it seems, when GMs start talking about "adjudicating gray areas" or are split on what the rules "clearly" support.

Diego, the GMing you describe of yourself - using the rules as written, while accepting that there are some gray areas - is exactly how GMing should be done in PFS. I commend you for your stance, and do the same myself. The problem is that every PFS GM claims to do the same, yet over and over again prove otherwise by considering an issue "gray" when it's actually clear, or vice versa.

The reason I say all this, Diego, is simply so that when you feel satisfied with your understanding of a rule (whether clear or gray) but the person(s) asking about it still seem unsatisfied, perhaps you'll see where they're coming from and be able to reassure them.

Qadira ***

Wow...

(Jiggy covers most of it, but I failed my will save and have to add to it.)

We've come a long way in just a few months.

T10 aside:

If T10 is "well described in the CRB" now... why am I STILL encountering judges who say "plainly, you cannot Take 10 on disable device rolls, or Stealth rolls, or knowledge rolls..."? (I notice they never say skill checks, it's always skill ROLLS...)

"Grey areas" are those areas where the players and/or judge have different intrepretations of what one or more rules say. A player can try to cover them before the game - "should consult with the GM in advance" - but I can recall the statements made on this board by a number of judges (most of them V.O.) that to even ask was confrontational. The phrase "I'd wonder what you were trying to pull, and watch you closesly during the game" comes to mind.

Ultimitly I had the T10 rules printed on T-shirts that I wear to game days... (if you see the shirt say "Hi Nosig!"), and even that had some judges say they would ask me to leave their table.

Qadira **

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Dragnmoon wrote:
nosig wrote:

I am guessing here Dragnmoon, but it appears that some people (judges and players) are assuming that if it lets you draw an arrow as a free action it would let you draw a wand as a free action... I guess they are getting that from the name, believing that the word "efficient" would mean it is faster maybe?

The problem with this is that the same logic could be applied to a normal quiver. saying that it lets you draw arrows as a free action, so it should let you draw wands as a free action too... it doesn't really work that way, it's not the quiver that makes drawing an arrow a free action (and different from drawing a wand etc.).

Yeah, Putting a Wand in the Quiver, gives you zero benefit, so an odd thing to have so many posts about since allowing it would do absolutely nothing.

I'd disagree, being one of the people who interprets the efficient quiver, since it allows "can quickly produce any item she wishes that is within the quiver, as if from a regular quiver" that a wand in an efficient quiver is a free action to draw like an arrow from a quiver. A wand in a regular quiver wouldn't be a free action to draw, since there's no magic on the regular quiver that allows it to produce any item within it quickly, although it'd still be a perfectly legitimate way of lugging them around.

Qadira ***

So, teribithia9, how do you feel about different judges doing this differently at their tables? Is this something we want in PFS? or would it be better for us all to do it the same way (whatever that might be)?


I would definately allow storage of wands, staves and rods in an EQ.

I would definately NOT allow them to be drawn as a free action. This would nearly invalidate the Glove of Storing, which is over five times as expensive and holds less.

The reason to put wands into an EQ would not be to draw them as a free action, but to be able to lay hands on the one you need when you need it instead of having to dig around up to 60 sticks to find the right one. This seems right in line with an item that costs as little as an EQ does, and it makes it valuable to more players. Win-win.

If someone is hung up on an in-game reason why you can draw an arrow/ammunition as a free action but not a wand/staff/rod, I can mumble some nonsense about "needing to draw up your magical reserves to call upon the power of the stored magic" before use (making it a move action in total).

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

teribithia9 wrote:
I'd disagree, being one of the people who interprets the efficient quiver, since it allows "can quickly produce any item she wishes that is within the quiver, as if from a regular quiver" that a wand in an efficient quiver is a free action to draw like an arrow from a quiver. A wand in a regular quiver wouldn't be a free action to draw, since there's no magic on the regular quiver that allows it to produce any item within it quickly, although it'd still be a perfectly legitimate way of lugging them around.

You quoted the rule yourself that you can draw an item "as if from a regular quiver". How did drawing a wand "as if from a regular quiver" turn into drawing a wand "as if it were an arrow from a regular quiver"?

Qadira ***

BINGO!

I've got:
1) "different GMs run the game differently"
2) "run the game with rules as written"
3) "Not at my table!"
4) "Take Ten"
5) explaining that there is no rule covering XX, while quoting the rule.

who do we see to check our Bingo cards? and do I win this thread?

Qadira **

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber
nosig wrote:

BINGO!

I've got:
1) "different GMs run the game differently"
2) "run the game with rules as written"
3) "Not at my table!"
4) "Take Ten"
5) explaining that there is no rule covering XX, while quoting the rule.

who do we see to check our Bingo cards? and do I win this thread?

I think you should win this thread, yes. :)

Qadira ***

teribithia9 wrote:
nosig wrote:

BINGO!

I've got:
1) "different GMs run the game differently"
2) "run the game with rules as written"
3) "Not at my table!"
4) "Take Ten"
5) explaining that there is no rule covering XX, while quoting the rule.

who do we see to check our Bingo cards? and do I win this thread?

I think you should win this thread, yes. :)

wow... my first ever.

thank you sir!

and the rest of you too, I couldn't have done it without the help of everyone here! WO-HO! (happy dance! and now everyon in the office KNOWs I'm insane...)

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

nosig wrote:
who do we see to check our Bingo cards?

I suggest turning your five winning phrases into links to the posts wherein they're contained. That way anyone can check them. ;)

Qadira ***

TwoWolves wrote:


...snipping out a line to quotre you out of context...
when you need it instead of having to dig around up to 60 sticks to find the right one.
...more snippage...

are we limited to 60?

I'm 4th level (just) and already have 12... when do I have to start worrying about hitting the limit?

Qadira ***

Jiggy wrote:
nosig wrote:
who do we see to check our Bingo cards?
I suggest turning your five winning phrases into links to the posts wherein they're contained. That way anyone can check them. ;)

Ha! shows what you know. the RAW CLEARLY state that all phrases must be in the same thread to be counted on the same card. Now I admit that I was reaching a bit with #5 - "explaining that there is no rule covering XX, while quoting the rule." but it was your post that tipped it for me...

Jiggy said - "You quoted the rule yourself that you can draw an item "as if from a regular quiver". How did drawing a wand "as if from a regular quiver" turn into drawing a wand "as if it were an arrow from a regular quiver"? "

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Oh, I already assumed they had to be from a single thread; but this is a long thread! We need links to individual posts to verify your answers! You don't expect us all to sift through three pages, do you? ;)

Qadira ***

Jiggy wrote:
Oh, I already assumed they had to be from a single thread; but this is a long thread! We need links to individual posts to verify your answers! You don't expect us all to sift through three pages, do you? ;)

ok... you found me out... (blushing)

I have no idea how to do a "link" that everyone else seems to do...
(I kind of feel like I'm admitting to not knowing how to program a smart phone...which is another think I can't do).

Andoran ***

Da Wander wrote:
TwoWolves wrote:


...snipping out a line to quotre you out of context...
when you need it instead of having to dig around up to 60 sticks to find the right one.
...more snippage...

are we limited to 60?

I'm 4th level (just) and already have 12... when do I have to start worrying about hitting the limit?

The 60 limit comes from the size of the arrow pocket in an Efficient Quiver, which can hold up to 60 arrows or similar-sized items.

teribithia9 wrote:
I'd disagree, being one of the people who interprets the efficient quiver, since it allows "can quickly produce any item she wishes that is within the quiver, as if from a regular quiver" that a wand in an efficient quiver is a free action to draw like an arrow from a quiver. A wand in a regular quiver wouldn't be a free action to draw, since there's no magic on the regular quiver that allows it to produce any item within it quickly, although it'd still be a perfectly legitimate way of lugging them around.

Since you can draw an arrow as a free action from a regular quiver, that is not one of the actual benefits for an Efficient Quiver. Rather the benfit is the same one provided by a Handy Haversack, in that, while it is still a move action to draw an item from either one, you don't have to fumble for the exact item, but that is the one that comes to hand.

To be honest, at this point, I would think that there are a few things that need to be clarified on the Efficient Quiver debate here, and all of them would/should be regular Pathfinder rules clarifications, and one of them isn't actually related to the quiver, one of them is maionly a general case, and one of them is fully quiver-related.

1) For the BAB +1 draw a weapon while moving as a free action, does this also apply to weapon-like objects?
(Personal opinion: It should)

2) For most items, when you pull them from an Efficient Quiver, you will not provoke an AoO, since they are weapons. Now, and this should cover any situation, not just when drawn from an Efficient Quiver, does drawing a weapon-like object, which includes wands, provoke an AoO when drawn?
(Personal opinion: Drawing a weapon-like object should not provoke, may already be covered by the rules)

3) What counts as an arrow-like item to be able to be placed in the arrow compartment of an Efficient Quiver?

This one takes more research to answer than I have time to do at present.

Silver Crusade **

nosig wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Oh, I already assumed they had to be from a single thread; but this is a long thread! We need links to individual posts to verify your answers! You don't expect us all to sift through three pages, do you? ;)

ok... you found me out... (blushing)

I have no idea how to do a "link" that everyone else seems to do...
(I kind of feel like I'm admitting to not knowing how to program a smart phone...which is another think I can't do).

A link is done by starting with the brackets []. In order to prevent things from going nuts, I'll be using () instead of [].

Inside the brackets, you let the forum software know you are making a link by typing "url=". (url=)

Next, you put in your url address, like so: (url=http://paizo.com)

Then, you have the text of your link (url=http://paizo.com)Paizo Publishing.

Finally, you let the software know you are finished with the link, and you close it out with (/url)

Paizo Publishing. Is the final result!

Qadira ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

thanks Alexander! Jiggy sent it to me in PM and I tried it and it works! wo-ho! moving into the 20th century... or something like that. Now if I can just figure out how to get my phone to fix breakfast...

Shadow Lodge **

no sig wrote:
Ultimitly I had the T10 rules printed on T-shirts that I wear to game days... (if you see the shirt say "Hi Nosig!"), and even that had some judges say they would ask me to leave their table.

-Basically, by wearing it on a t shirt you're at best implying that the judges haven't read it, as opposed to reading it differently than you are. At worst saying that they can't possibly read the rules and still disagree with you implies they have a reading comprehension problem.

Qadira ***

BigNorseWolf wrote:
no sig wrote:
Ultimitly I had the T10 rules printed on T-shirts that I wear to game days... (if you see the shirt say "Hi Nosig!"), and even that had some judges say they would ask me to leave their table.
-Basically, by wearing it on a t shirt you're at best implying that the judges haven't read it, as opposed to reading it differently than you are. At worst saying that they can't possibly read the rules and still disagree with you implies they have a reading comprehension problem.

really? goodness... the way some people take things.

T10 T-shirt derail:

I question your statement - "-Basically, by wearing it on a t shirt you're at best implying that the judges haven't read it,". I in fact wear it because I like the rule. I use the rule.

I always figured it was like any other printed shirt.

But on reflection, I guess you might be correct a bit too. I do feel judges/players (I normally wear it as a judge) who tell me that it takes 10 times as long to T10 as it does to do the skill ROLL likely have not read, or possible comprehended the rule. But perhaps I am mistaken. (shrugs).

It does though come in handy when I turn to a new player and say "that's a gather information check, do you want to use Diplomacy or Kn (local) for that?" and he graps a dice and, because he's a beginner I say, "you know you can Take 10?" point at shirt. Then we can get it addressed at the start of the game when one of the other players jumps in to 'correct' me and says "you can't take ten on a Knowledge roll!" and I can say, "well actually..." and do this during the VC briefing and not in the middle of the game, but you get the idea.

and No - when the judge tells me that I can't T-10 on a Perception check (or any other skill) I just pull my dice and roll it... after the game, judge to judge I may ask him why he feels that T-10 can't be done for XX skill... and then point at the shirt. It saves digging out the books to look up the rule.

The judges (I have not met them in person, they only posted on the board) that said they would "ask me to leave their table" stated they would ask me to leave if I even asked how they ruled on T10 before the game started. The T-shirt seemed to be a "lesser threat" to them, but still be cause to get me tossed. If you wish you can go back and review the... 3 or 4 threads that each ran over 100 posts each, and ask them the reason why they would ask me to leave... I think it was a bit of an overreaction in the heat of the thread... but I don't really know. I don't really remember, where you one of those judges?

Qadira ***

BigNorseWolf wrote:
no sig wrote:
Ultimitly I had the T10 rules printed on T-shirts that I wear to game days... (if you see the shirt say "Hi Nosig!"), and even that had some judges say they would ask me to leave their table.
-Basically, by wearing it on a t shirt you're at best implying that the judges haven't read it, as opposed to reading it differently than you are. At worst saying that they can't possibly read the rules and still disagree with you implies they have a reading comprehension problem.

very small matter...

actually I post under "nosig", not "no sig". It would be more correct to spell it "nosi g". "no sig" would be like me splitting yours' into
"BigN or seW olf" ... which just looks odd...

Qadira ***

putting this thread back on the wands track.

some of my PCs use weapon cords for thier wands -
I picture them as a string attaching the wand to the wrist sheath it came out of, or around the neck like a lanyard or even attaching them to the characters belt or backpack. something so if the wand is dropped it it easily retrieved.

Does this make sense you anyone else?

Who would not allow this? ("a wand is not weapon like enough" or "Weapon Cords are for weapons only" or something like that)

Shadow Lodge ****

you know ... Reading the argument about the EQ and wands ... it is fairly OBVIOUS that it's a Move action to Draw (hell its even in the RAW)

my question is this ... is your Money SO TIGHT that you cant go an additional 200gp for a haversack ... I mean Come on ... 200 gp to avoid this excretion contest would be a small price to pay

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Um, do you mean 2,000?

Shadow Lodge ****

Jiggy wrote:
Um, do you mean 2,000?

no ... I meant 200

people are already dishing out 1800 for the EQ ... Spend an additional 200 (2000 total) for the haversack

the debate seems a little silly to me

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Wraith235 wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Um, do you mean 2,000?

no ... I meant 200

people are already dishing out 1800 for the EQ ... Spend an additional 200 (2000 total) for the haversack

the debate seems a little silly to me

Well, the Haversack can't safely store sharp objects like the EQ can. So if you're already wanting to store a bunch of arrows/javelins/spears/etc, you'll want the EQ. And then if you already have the EQ, you're looking at spending a whole 2k more if you also want a Haversack.

I'm not personally aware of any specific PCs with that issue, but it doesn't strike me as very far-fetched.

Shadow Lodge ****

Jiggy wrote:
Wraith235 wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Um, do you mean 2,000?

no ... I meant 200

people are already dishing out 1800 for the EQ ... Spend an additional 200 (2000 total) for the haversack

the debate seems a little silly to me

Well, the Haversack can't safely store sharp objects like the EQ can. So if you're already wanting to store a bunch of arrows/javelins/spears/etc, you'll want the EQ. And then if you already have the EQ, you're looking at spending a whole 2k more if you also want a Haversack.

I'm not personally aware of any specific PCs with that issue, but it doesn't strike me as very far-fetched.

Pathfinder SRD wrote:


A backpack of this sort appears to be well made, well used, and quite ordinary. It is constructed of finely tanned leather, and the straps have brass hardware and buckles. It has two side pouches, each of which appears large enough to hold about a quart of material. In fact, each is like a bag of holding and can actually hold material of as much as 2 cubic feet in volume or 20 pounds in weight. The large central portion of the pack can contain up to 8 cubic feet or 80 pounds of material. Even when so filled, the backpack always weighs only 5 pounds.

While such storage is useful enough, the pack has an even greater power. When the wearer reaches into it for a specific item, that item is always on top. Thus, no digging around and fumbling is ever necessary to find what a haversack contains. Retrieving any specific item from a haversack is a move action, but it does not provoke the attacks of opportunity that retrieving a stored item usually does.

Editor's Note: Handy Haversack does not indicate the sort of space inside it other than to say it is "like a bag of holding" which is described as opening to a "non-dimensional space" whereas the rules on extradimensional spaces explicitly refer to bags of holding and handy haversacks as examples of extradimensional spaces.

Nothing in there about Saftey of storing weapons... and either way this is about wands .... IMHO .... Kick table Variation in the Kiester ... pay the extra 200 ... get a haversack ...

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

It says it functions like a Bag of Holding, which can be ruptured from the inside by pointy things.

EDIT: For those playing PFS Thread Bingo, the above post counts for "'rules don't say' while quoting where it is in the rules". ;)

EDIT2: Or did we already have that one in this thread?

**** Venture-Captain, New Jersey aka Shivok

Jiggy wrote:

It says it functions like a Bag of Holding, which can be ruptured from the inside by pointy things.

EDIT: For those playing PFS Thread Bingo, the above post counts for "'rules don't say' while quoting where it is in the rules". ;)

EDIT2: Or did we already have that one in this thread?

LOL!

This thread gets more hilarious by the day.

****

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
nosig wrote:

...

If T10 is "well described in the CRB" now... why am I STILL encountering judges who say "plainly, you cannot Take 10 on disable device rolls, or Stealth rolls, or knowledge rolls..."? (I notice they never say skill checks, it's always skill ROLLS...)

I believe that is one thing passed down from 3.5

Qadira ***

Diego Winterborg wrote:
nosig wrote:

...

If T10 is "well described in the CRB" now... why am I STILL encountering judges who say "plainly, you cannot Take 10 on disable device rolls, or Stealth rolls, or knowledge rolls..."? (I notice they never say skill checks, it's always skill ROLLS...)

I believe that is one thing passed down from 3.5

it was the same way it is now in 3.5.

the problem with "takes 10 times as long" comes from mixing T10 and T20 (which is it's own can of worms).

Shadow Lodge ****

Jiggy wrote:

It says it functions like a Bag of Holding, which can be ruptured from the inside by pointy things.

EDIT: For those playing PFS Thread Bingo, the above post counts for "'rules don't say' while quoting where it is in the rules". ;)

EDIT2: Or did we already have that one in this thread?

Missed it when I looked up bag of holding ... But again ... This thread is about WANDS ... which twice now you ignored

My argument about Storing Wands in an EQ vs. a Haversack Comes down to a cost of 200 GP Difference ...

this was not about rupturing a bag of holding ... or about storing Arrows / javelins ect in a haversack ... but about the fact that this argumnt is comming down to a difference of 200 gp

and the question of ... is 200 gp ... REALLY worth the table variation

by the intent to continue to argue ... aparently it is ...

enjoy arguing with your DM at each table ... I'll just buy a haversack and be set

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Wraith235 wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

It says it functions like a Bag of Holding, which can be ruptured from the inside by pointy things.

EDIT: For those playing PFS Thread Bingo, the above post counts for "'rules don't say' while quoting where it is in the rules". ;)

EDIT2: Or did we already have that one in this thread?

Missed it when I looked up bag of holding ... But again ... This thread is about WANDS ... which twice now you ignored

You said you couldn't see why someone wouldn't just get a Haversack for their wands instead of the EQ; I told you one possible reason.

How is that argumentative or ignoring anything?

Shadow Lodge ****

when the RAW Clearly state that the mechanical benefit for a EQ holding Wands (Free action draw) does not apply

and when the Argument of Rods in the Javelin compartment and Wands in the Bolt compartment is OBVIOUSLY going to cause an Immense amount of table variation ... you'll eventually have a wizard looking like some weird porcupine AND overloaded at one table ... but perfectly normal at another

my suggestion which was based in the Idea of a Solution to table variation... was based on some of the worst table variation I have seen ... and that sometimes ... its just not worth it

my interpretation of this thread was someone asking for assistance on how to store wands for flavor .... it then digressed into a mechanical question ...

and for the record I was Not making the argument based on a Hybrid point of view ... Arrows and Wands .... or Javelins and Rods ... but an Either or situation

you stated how you would handle it ... and Truth be Told I do not disagree with you in the slightest (I have NEVER stated my personal opinion) as long as the Wand Draw Maintains a Move action to Draw (as per standard Rules)

but now I ask.... what Solution would you put forth for people who run into the other type of ruling ... the ones where they are told that "No you may not store them in that" there is no real point to a Debate unless solutions are presented that do not involve Relying on the campaign coordinator staff

Mine was the Haversack ... what is yours ?

Qadira ***

Wraith235 wrote:


when the RAW Clearly state that the mechanical benefit for a EQ holding Wands (Free action draw) does not apply

and when the Argument of Rods in the Javelin compartment and Wands in the Bolt compartment is OBVIOUSLY going to cause an Immense amount of table variation ... you'll eventually have a wizard looking like some weird porcupine AND overloaded at one table ... but perfectly normal at another

my suggestion which was based in the Idea of a Solution to table variation... was based on some of the worst table variation I have seen ... and that sometimes ... its just not worth it

my interpretation of this thread was someone asking for assistance on how to store wands for flavor .... it then digressed into a mechanical question ...

and for the record I was Not making the argument based on a Hybrid point of view ... Arrows and Wands .... or Javelins and Rods ... but an Either or situation

you stated how you would handle it ... and Truth be Told I do not disagree with you in the slightest (I have NEVER stated my personal opinion) as long as the Wand Draw Maintains a Move action to Draw (as per standard Rules)

but now I ask.... what Solution would you put forth for people who run into the other type of ruling ... the ones where they are told that "No you may not store them in that" there is no real point to a Debate unless solutions are presented that do not involve Relying on the campaign coordinator staff

Mine was the Haversack ... what is yours ?

mine would be the same as when I run into a judge that says "you can't do XXX" where XXX is any rule excepted by a majority of the rest of the gamers (players and judges). When I'm told that I can't Aid on a skill check, or T-10 on a knowledge check, or shoot into a melee, or... a thousand other things. Judge says I can't do something, that's the way it works as long as I'm a player at his table. After the game, (and on the board), I may point out that the rules say otherwise. OR that I think the rules do, and let the rest of you convense me I am wrong.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Wraith235 wrote:


when the RAW Clearly state that the mechanical benefit for a EQ holding Wands (Free action draw) does not apply

Agreed, but what does that have to do with anything I said to you?

Quote:
and when the Argument of Rods in the Javelin compartment and Wands in the Bolt compartment is OBVIOUSLY going to cause an Immense amount of table variation ... you'll eventually have a wizard looking like some weird porcupine AND overloaded at one table ... but perfectly normal at another

You lost me. How did we get from "here's an example of something you said you couldn't think of", to the above paragraph?

Quote:
my suggestion which was based in the Idea of a Solution to table variation... was based on some of the worst table variation I have seen ... and that sometimes ... its just not worth it

See above.

my interpretation of this thread was someone asking for assistance on how to store wands for flavor .... it then digressed into a mechanical question ...

Quote:
and for the record I was Not making the argument based on a Hybrid point of view ... Arrows and Wands .... or Javelins and Rods ... but an Either or situation

Still not sure what you're talking about; at least, not in context of the dialogue between you and me.

Quote:
you stated how you would handle it ... and Truth be Told I do not disagree with you in the slightest (I have NEVER stated my personal opinion) as long as the Wand Draw Maintains a Move action to Draw (as per standard Rules)

I never said you did state your personal opinion, as far as I recall.

Quote:

but now I ask.... what Solution would you put forth for people who run into the other type of ruling ... the ones where they are told that "No you may not store them in that" there is no real point to a Debate unless solutions are presented that do not involve Relying on the campaign coordinator staff

Mine was the Haversack ... what is yours?

How about "when someone supplies a single piece of information that you stated you didn't have, don't go ballistic on them as though they were the embodiment of everything you oppose on the current topic"?

Either that, or move your wands to your pockets for that game.

***

I have a quick question... while it *is* legal to pay the difference to "upgrade" a magic item- say changing a +2 headband of attribute boosting to a +4 or add plus equivalent enchantments to a weapon, is the (200 GP) upgrade being debated about even legal? i.e. a magical quiver into a haversack?

I would think a character would have to sell the quiver for 50% and put that toward the cost of the haversack. Can someone clarify this particular issue for me? Thanks.

Shadow Lodge ****

Jiggy ... My Whole Stance on this ... has been about table variation and how to avoid it you can say it hasnt been and thats your opinion ...(only 2 of my posts have not included those words)

the HHH was an option ... yes I missed a Key Line in the description .. Im only human ... but it was an option

I will Gladly respond ... but the quote is getting too long to Sift Easily

Jiggy wrote:
Agreed, but what does that have to do with anything I said to you?

Nothing ... it was Based in the Thread discussion

Jiggy wrote:
You lost me. How did we get from "here's an example of something you said you couldn't think of", to the above paragraph?

and

Jiggy wrote:
See above.

A) I admitted my mistake and moved on

B) Because you could not see that my entire statement was about how to avoid Table variation and the annoyance that it causes

Jiggy wrote:
Still not sure what you're talking about; at least, not in context of the dialogue between you and me.

Exactly .. I felt that based on one of your previous statments that I needed to clarify my position ... and hybrid = Arrows and Wands stored at the same time

Jiggy wrote:
I never said you did state your personal opinion, as far as I recall.

you are Correct Sir .. you did not ... I felt that a clarification of my stance was Warented

Jiggy wrote:

How about "when someone supplies a single piece of information that you stated you didn't have, don't go ballistic on them as though they were the embodiment of everything you oppose on the current topic"?

Either that, or move your wands to your pockets for that game.

Since I don't Care to look back to confirm if your 1st statement was directed at me or not I will chose not to respond to it

***

nosig wrote:

I do have one character with a LOT of wands... and I've had one judge question how I keep them strait - that I might pull the wrong one.

He actually said something like, if I did this in his home game he would start imposing a time pen. to sort thru my wands, making it at least a full round action to find the correct one. But that in PFS he couldn't do that... Yeah PFS!

Just had an idea... what if you bind a number of wands together and hold the bound bundle in your hand, activating the one that you want to use as needed from the bundle?

Shadow Lodge ****

Whiskey Jack wrote:

I have a quick question... while it *is* legal to pay the difference to "upgrade" a magic item- say changing a +2 headband of attribute boosting to a +4 or add plus equivalent enchantments to a weapon, is the (200 GP) upgrade being debated about even legal? i.e. a magical quiver into a haversack?

I would think a character would have to sell the quiver for 50% and put that toward the cost of the haversack. Can someone clarify this particular issue for me? Thanks.

Highly doubt it ... they are 2 different Items that function similarly ... not an example of ... 1 is a prerequisite to the other

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Whiskey Jack wrote:

I have a quick question... while it *is* legal to pay the difference to "upgrade" a magic item- say changing a +2 headband of attribute boosting to a +4 or add plus equivalent enchantments to a weapon, is the (200 GP) upgrade being debated about even legal? i.e. a magical quiver into a haversack?

I would think a character would have to sell the quiver for 50% and put that toward the cost of the haversack. Can someone clarify this particular issue for me? Thanks.

No, he was saying just buy a Haversack instead of ever buying the EQ in the first place.

@Wraith - You sure seemed to feel an awful lot of need for clarifying your position. How come?

Shadow Lodge ****

Jiggy wrote:
Whiskey Jack wrote:

I have a quick question... while it *is* legal to pay the difference to "upgrade" a magic item- say changing a +2 headband of attribute boosting to a +4 or add plus equivalent enchantments to a weapon, is the (200 GP) upgrade being debated about even legal? i.e. a magical quiver into a haversack?

I would think a character would have to sell the quiver for 50% and put that toward the cost of the haversack. Can someone clarify this particular issue for me? Thanks.

No, he was saying just buy a Haversack instead of ever buying the EQ in the first place.

@Wraith - You sure seemed to feel an awful lot of need for clarifying your position. How come?

when my post is picked apart piece by piece and when over the course of 6 or so posts my position is questioned

yes ... I will clarify my position

Cheliax ***** Venture-Captain, Nebraska—Omaha

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Calm down nerds!

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Wraith235 wrote:

when my post is picked apart piece by piece and when over the course of 6 or so posts my position is questioned

yes ... I will clarify my position

Are you reading our posts in reverse order or something? Because I didn't "pick anything apart" until AFTER you started accusing me of being argumentative.

You're "clarifying" things I never asked/talked about, and then telling me you had to do so because I questioned your position.

Sounds to me like you expected me to say certain things and replied despite me not actually saying them.

101 to 150 of 153 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder Society® / General Discussion / How to store wands? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.