RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
There's an item in Ultimate Equipment that's gotten some attention due to an unspecified usage limit. It's supposed to be a one-use item, but that got left out of the description, giving the user at-will invisibility and feather fall for 750gp.
Here's SKR confirming it's supposed to be a consumable.
Since the book just came out and eratta doesn't happen until the next printing, I highly recommend that Mike or Mark "officialize" this ruling for PFS before too many players wet themselves. :/
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
It's not core rules, it's recently-released additional content. As such, I'm hoping we can get a binding clarification before thousands of people buy the item with the intent of at-will usage so we don't have to endure a year of arguing with players about "RAW" and then another year (post-errata) of messageboard threads with titles like "OMG why u nerf sanpleef?"
The idea is that maybe if we get it officially clarified before people start buying it en masse, we might not have to deal with as much backlash and whatnot.
|
Keep in mind this restriction, "The item cannot be activated to provide just one of these two effects; they are always activated simultaneously."
Feather fall can only target a freefalling object or creature and ends as soon as the target hits the ground. It is my argument that activating it while on the ground would then only provide the invisibility effect. Since this is expressly disallowed, you cannot activate it unless you are freefalling. Simply while airborne, such as using a fly spell would be arguable.
Now, as far as single use vs. unlimited use goes, if the item is indeed incorrect, then I do hope this is clarified. I agree with the above posters that it shouldn't be errata'd just for PFS; it should either be in a FAQ or the item should be disallowed in PFS until a correction appears in the errata or a FAQ.
This.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Keep in mind this restriction, "The item cannot be activated to provide just one of these two effects; they are always activated simultaneously."
Feather fall can only target a freefalling object or creature and ends as soon as the target hits the ground. It is my argument that activating it while on the ground would then only provide the invisibility effect. Since this is expressly disallowed, you cannot activate it unless you are freefalling. Simply while airborne, such as using a fly spell would be arguable.
If you want to be that pedantic, I'd point out that the item doesn't cast feather fall - it gives you its benefits. Thus, the targeting restriction doesn't apply. If your interpretation were correct, then we'd have to do the same with the invisibility portion, allowing it to be used as a touch spell so the user can hold the charge and poke an ally to make them invisible.
When something ludicrous comes on the scene (be it an item, spell, feat, player, or whatever else), address it directly. Don't try to "beat" it by being even more ludicrous as a GM. That doesn't solve anything, and just reduces your credibility when a player feels suspicious of a legitimate ruling.
Now, as far as single use vs. unlimited use goes, if the item is indeed incorrect, then I do hope this is clarified. I agree with the above posters that it shouldn't be errata'd just for PFS; it should either be in a FAQ or the item should be disallowed in PFS until a correction appears in the errata or a FAQ.
Those would be fine, too. Just something to keep people from getting attached to the item until it gets fixed for good.
|
Jiggy-
Ah. Okay, I see your point. I guess I was using "core" in an imprecise way. I meant only that it was a ruling in the core (read as "main") system, not one that was for PFS alone. But, since it is referred to as the "core rulebook", I see the misinterpretation.
And I, too, agree that there should be a FAQ or temporary restriction until errata comes out for the book.
|
First of all - thanks to Mike for a quick clarification.
Second: I really, really don't understand why something like this needs any clarification at all.
From the item and cost it should be obvious that we talk a limited use item. A quick search on the message board brings me to This Post . See the cost of the item discussed by Clark Peterson who even think it's underpriced (as one use item).
This is round 1 of RPG superstar with the original item by Jesse Benner (1 use item) as well as discussion about it by the judges of Clark Peterson, SKR, Wesley Sneider, Neil Spicer.
They discuss the merits, the cost, the good/ the bad. I haven't yet read how this changed to the final item in print.
Hardly any item in in the CRB is ever that well described/discussed. You can't get better to find the RAI as that.
Anyone asking if this is one-use or saying - RAW it isn't limited - hasn't done his homework - or - tries to exploit a missing sentence.
This is the reason why I dislike someone branding RAW at me. It doesn't mean I dislike following the rules. So if there ever was a case to show that RAW is wrong BEFORE an errata - well - this example is difficult to beat and I would rule it is a one use item any time after reading the RPG superstar - even if a sentence is missing in the final book.
Sorry for the rant - just didn't feel to stop it.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Thod - Keep in mind that not all players cruise the boards, and not all players are experienced enough to know what should cost what. Someone could buy the book, see the item, and very innocently think it was reusable without realizing how broken that would be. When the GM informs them it's a one-time use, it would be much better for that GM to explain that it's been clarified than to justify contradicting the written source "because it's obvious". GMs contradicting written material on the basis of what they think is obviously overpowered has been the source of far more wrong rulings than right ones, and we shouldn't encourage that.*
And on top of that, telling an inexperienced player that it's "obvious" doesn't exactly enhance their fun - much better to explain that there was additional clarification that they didn't know about, and it's fine, anyone could have made the same mistake, and hey, check out these nifty messageboards we have!
RAW means different things to different people. There are those who consider the term to be utterly literal, akin to a barrister trying to get his defendent off on a technicality. And then there are those who consider RAW to mean playing the game as its written and not making stuff up when perfectly valid rules exist, not adding monsters to a scenario to make it more 'challenging', or ignoring rules because the GM can't be bothered to look them up and so on.
Just because someone wants to play the game as written doesn't mean they're an obsessive compulsive rules layer looking for a loophole!
That's my counter-rant. :-)
Look at it as if it was a potion.
Spell level X Caster level X 50gp
Snapleaf is CL 5
Feather Fall 250gp
Invisibility 500gp
Then have it useable as an immediate action.
I would call that a good price for a single use item.