graywulfe |
None of my characters have a SLWS. I have known about them for some time. I have told how great they are. One day some of my PCs may have them. Still not that big a priority to me.
I think the SLWS makes more sense with a potion, wand, or scroll than it does with a weapon. This is not a statement about the rules, just a comment on the visual.
The fact is that the SLWS has vague rules, unfortunately in Society play that often means more restrictive rules.
Dhjika |
If you are looking for a rule that non-spell swift actions DO provoke, then I invite you to find where it says they do not. I can't give you a quote, because it's not there.
Provoking an Attack of Opportunity: Two kinds of actions can provoke attacks of opportunity: moving out of a threatened square and performing certain actions within a threatened square.
Moving: ......Performing a Distracting Act: Some actions, when performed in a threatened square, provoke attacks of opportunity as you divert your attention from the battle. Table 8–2 notes any of the actions that provoke attacks of opportunity.
Does Table 8-2 in CRB have a non-spell-swift-action provoking an AoO? teh CRB says that table contains any of the actions that provoke
---
On the other hand
Free Action: Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM.
and then later on pg 188 - Free actions rarely incur attacks of opportunity.
So if Free actions can provoke, rarely, then certainly swift actions could. And Table 8-2 never shows a free action that provokes, so perhaps.......
------------
And then there are these gems.
You can take a swift action anytime you would normally be allowed to take a free action.
and
In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn’t your turn. Speaking more than a few sentences is generally beyond the limit of a free action.
I would not it says a few sentences, not a few words.
Jiggy RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 |
@Kyle - Well, that's an argument of power level, which isn't what trollbill was talking about (in my understanding). He was replying specifically to the part of Drogon's post where he said that it's not about it being overpowered, but that the "problem" is that it's a no-brainer purchase. I think all trollbill was trying to say (and I would agree) is that "so many people buy this that there's a problem" is a silly claim, since there are lots of items that are commonly encouraged for most (if not all) PCs to purchase at some point. Heck, the famous "Painlord's What To Expect" is all about making sure everyone packs the right gear. If we're actively encouraging the ubiquity of various items, then how can we use an item's ubiquity as grounds for labeling it a problem?
The issue of whether the SLWS is overpowered/broken/ruins action economy is a point to be discussed, and your post addresses that. But what trollbill was talking about is that "the problem is that it's standard gear" is silly.
Kyle Baird |
"the problem is that it's standard gear" is silly.
I don't think it's that silly honestly. How many bags of holding do you see? Those were one of THE things to get back in the day when you wanted your AC to be closer to or below zero. The haversack in its current form all but eliminates anyone's desire for a BoH. To me, that means there's something wrong with that, but not on the scale of SLWS.
Arguing that standard adventuring gear makes the "everyone wants to buy it, it's probably broken" position invalid is an odd point of view. The game itself encourages and promotes PCs to have certain basic items from historical and fictional references. What's an adventurer without a torch, rope, chalk, marbles, etc?
I would even argue that the 2PP for a wand of CLW is "broken." If that ability/rule wasn't in place, how many PFS PCs would actually have a wand of CLW? I don't know, no one knows, but IMO it would be significantly less than the current percentage of PCs.
A good example for this discussion is the Quickrunner's Shirt. As soon as it came out, everyone was like "GET THIS THING NOW" (or ban this shirt!). The price, slot and ability were so far out of whack, that it was a no-brainer purchase. The SLWS is a no-brainer as it would help every single PC be better for 5 gp w/o using a magical slot. If the SLWS cost a thousand GP and was magical, not every player would be screaming that it was something they had to have. (1,000 gp is pulled out of the darkness and is completely arbitrary)
trollbill Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne |
@Kyle - Well, that's an argument of power level, which isn't what trollbill was talking about (in my understanding). He was replying specifically to the part of Drogon's post where he said that it's not about it being overpowered, but that the "problem" is that it's a no-brainer purchase. I think all trollbill was trying to say (and I would agree) is that "so many people buy this that there's a problem" is a silly claim, since there are lots of items that are commonly encouraged for most (if not all) PCs to purchase at some point. Heck, the famous "Painlord's What To Expect" is all about making sure everyone packs the right gear. If we're actively encouraging the ubiquity of various items, then how can we use an item's ubiquity as grounds for labeling it a problem?
The issue of whether the SLWS is overpowered/broken/ruins action economy is a point to be discussed, and your post addresses that. But what trollbill was talking about is that "the problem is that it's standard gear" is silly.
Yup! What he said.
Jiggy RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Arguing that standard adventuring gear makes the "everyone wants to buy it, it's probably broken" position invalid is an odd point of view. The game itself encourages and promotes PCs to have certain basic items from historical and fictional references. What's an adventurer without a torch, rope, chalk, marbles, etc?
I guess I don't see the difference between "every adventurer should have a torch" and "every adventurer should have a wrist sheath". If one is a problem and the other is not, then the source of the issue is going to be something that's different between them, not the one thing they have in common (in this case, ubiquity).
Is it that it doesn't have the same legacy/pedigree as other gear, and therefore shouldn't be "standard"? If so, we can talk about that.
Is it that it does things that shouldn't be done (like alter action economy)? If so, we can talk about that.
Is it that it's too powerful for the price (such as your comment about it getting more useful throughout a PC's career)? If so, we can talk about that.
Let's zero in on what the issue is, and discuss that. All I'm saying is that "too many people use it" is provably not the issue, because other items possess the same quality without being a problem. From your comments, I'm guessing that maybe the real issue (or one of them) is that perhaps you feel only certain "classic" items should be ubiquitous/"standard gear", so a new ("non-classic") item doesn't have the right to reach that status. I'm guessing this because it's so similar to what you're saying, though I could be wrong. :)
JohnF Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West |
Fast Fingers Freddy wrote:To be fair, it's Doug's mountain. My ego just floats around it. Things are getting cramped up here, you may have to room with the girls. ;-)Daisuke Intonjutsu wrote:Not as sneaky as me. Looked around your mountain top, the last week? d-:Drogon wrote:Edit: Damn you, ninja-Kyle!I am very sneaky.
If it's large enough for Kyle's ego, I'd have thought there was more than enough room for all the 5-stars to each bring a group of friends ...
nosig |
Chris Mortika wrote:I love 3a.3) Almost no GMs enforce the "provoke an AoO" clause, if my players' shocked objections are to be believed.
3a) Most of those players then realize that they don't have the rules for the SLWS handy, and their toy suddenly stops working at all.
I wasn't at the table, but a friend told me that he had a judge that did this to players at his table.
Judge: "Yes, I know you own the Adventurer's Armory - I saw you with it last week. But you don't have it with your right now, so you can't use the SLWS".
I didn't beleave him, but I guess I need to revise my opinion. Are there really judges who would do this?
Kyle Baird |
I'm saying is that "too many people use it" is provably not the issue
This we agree on. It's an indicator that there's an issue with the item.
Edit: also, there is a historical aspect to some of this (like the torch vs. wrist sheath). This game is based on previous fantasy fiction and historical references. Did Indiana Jones use a torch? How about a spring-loaded wrist sheath? Yes there are fictional (and probably historical) references to such a device, but they aren't as prevalent in our culture and thus not a cornerstone of our game.
I think what's also funny is that not every character benefits from a torch. Those with darkvision or the ability to cast light don't need/want them (unless they like burning stuff). Find me a character that doesn't benefit from a SLWS (maybe a haunted oracle?).
Kyle Baird |
Kyle Baird wrote:Chris Mortika wrote:I love 3a.3) Almost no GMs enforce the "provoke an AoO" clause, if my players' shocked objections are to be believed.
3a) Most of those players then realize that they don't have the rules for the SLWS handy, and their toy suddenly stops working at all.
I wasn't at the table, but a friend told me that he had a judge that did this to players at his table.
Judge: "Yes, I know you own the Adventurer's Armory - I saw you with it last week. But you don't have it with your right now, so you can't use the SLWS".
I didn't beleave him, but I guess I need to revise my opinion. Are there really judges who would do this?
Sure! You had the source last week and we went over how it works. Now I can't remember the exact wording and I want to see if it's being used correctly. Can you please provide the rules for it? No? Then I'm going to ask that you don't use it.
Chris Mortika RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16 |
James Risner Owner - D20 Hobbies |
3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
3) Almost no GMs enforce the "provoke an AoO" clause, if my players' shocked objections are to be believed.
To be fair, it isn't entirely clear what the RAW is.
AA p9:
"Wrist Sheath ... As a move action ... provoking attacks of op"
"Wrist Sheath, Spring Loaded ... is a swift action"
CRB p188:
"a swift action is like a free action"
"Free actions rarely incur attacks of opportunity."
There are two valid ways to read the SLWS:
a) It provokes because it doesn't say it doesn't and the Move action one does.
b) It doesn't provoke because it doesn't say it does but does say loading it provokes.
Option A makes sense from one view and Option B makes sense from another. Without PFS leadership saying one way or another, we can't come to an agreement. Unless this has already been clarified as option A.
trollbill Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne |
Kyle,
I think that ubiquitous use of an item may be an indicator of possible brokenness but it is not proof of brokenness. I also believe it is possible for something to be broken for all the right reasons.
Case in point: Wand Of Cure Light Wounds for 2 PP. I actually agree this is broken, but it's brokenness solves a problem. PFS wants to encourage people to play what they want, but the nature of PFS means you can never be assured of having a balanced party or if you are going to have a healer at your table. Healing being very important in Pathfinder, making a broken rule that encourages healing without the requirement of a dedicated healer helps encourage people to play what they want and cut some of the pain of not having a balanced party.
I could argue using a scroll of BoL with a SLWS would be one of those cases of broken for the right reasons.
graywulfe |
nosig wrote:Damn skippy.
Judge: "Yes, I know you own the Adventurer's Armory - I saw you with it last week. But you don't have it with your right now, so you can't use the SLWS".I didn't beleave him, but I guess I need to revise my opinion. Are there really judges who would do this?
Agreed.
Kyle Baird |
I could argue using a scroll of BoL with a SLWS would be one of those cases of broken for the right reasons.
And there are many people who I know and respect that share the same opinion. I do not. I think it trivializes the need to learn and understand good tactics. It's my opinion that too many of these "easy" solutions to serious consequences leads to ill-prepared adventurers.
CRobledo |
To be fair, it's Doug's mountain. My ego just floats around it. Things are getting cramped up here, you may have to room with the girls. ;-)
Huh. So Kyle Baird's ego is an ioun stone? Curious...
I could argue using a scroll of BoL with a SLWS would be one of those cases of broken for the right reasons.
As stated upthread, there are gloves of storing for that.
Todd Lower |
There's actually a named shield that does that...Caster's Shield.
Looks like this one requires scroll scribing so could only be 'reloaded' by an NPC. Maybe not as helpful as you would like. :-(
Jiggy RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 |
Jiggy wrote:I'm saying is that "too many people use it" is provably not the issueThis we agree on. It's an indicator that there's an issue with the item.
Okay, then would it be fair to assume that ALL ubiquitous items need to be examined to see if there's a problem, since they all bear this same indicator?
Edit: also, there is a historical aspect to some of this (like the torch vs. wrist sheath). This game is based on previous fantasy fiction and historical references. Did Indiana Jones use a torch? How about a spring-loaded wrist sheath? Yes there are fictional (and probably historical) references to such a device, but they aren't as prevalent in our culture and thus not a cornerstone of our game.
So if I'm understanding you right, then when we examine an item which bears the aforementioned indicator that there's an issue, one of the things which can give said item the all-clear is if it's similarly ubiquitous in fiction and history. Correct?
I think what's also funny is that not every character benefits from a torch. Those with darkvision or the ability to cast light don't need/want them (unless they like burning stuff). Find me a character that doesn't benefit from a SLWS (maybe a haunted oracle?).
Tieflings. Wizards with +1 BAB.
Honestly, I'm actually kind of surprised at the reports I'm reading from you and others. I have one PC (out of several) who uses the SLWS: a diviner eldritch knight who wants to activate his wand of shield in the surprise round. That's literally the only reason he has one, and at 11th level, I'm considering giving it up and just burning 1st-level spell slots on "real" shield spells.My wife's magus has one, also loaded with a wand of shield. The only reason she has it is so that her move can be after activation instead of before, or so that she can put it away on the same turn she uses it.
Outside the pair of us, I could probably count on one hand the number of times I've heard someone activate their SLWS. Fewer times, in fact, than I've heard spellcasters point out their spiked gauntlets when asked if they threaten.
But all that's beside the point, I suppose. I'll take you (and others') word that it's ubiquitous. :)
So what problem do you suppose its ubiquity is indicating?
James Risner Owner - D20 Hobbies |
Bbauzh ap Aghauzh |
Kyle Baird wrote:Arguing that standard adventuring gear makes the "everyone wants to buy it, it's probably broken" position invalid is an odd point of view. The game itself encourages and promotes PCs to have certain basic items from historical and fictional references. What's an adventurer without a torch, rope, chalk, marbles, etc?I guess I don't see the difference between "every adventurer should have a torch" and "every adventurer should have a wrist sheath". If one is a problem and the other is not, then the source of the issue is going to be something that's different between them, not the one thing they have in common (in this case, ubiquity).
Is it that it doesn't have the same legacy/pedigree as other gear, and therefore shouldn't be "standard"? If so, we can talk about that.
Is it that it does things that shouldn't be done (like alter action economy)? If so, we can talk about that.
Is it that it's too powerful for the price (such as your comment about it getting more useful throughout a PC's career)? If so, we can talk about that.
Let's zero in on what the issue is, and discuss that. All I'm saying is that "too many people use it" is provably not the issue, because other items possess the same quality without being a problem. From your comments, I'm guessing that maybe the real issue (or one of them) is that perhaps you feel only certain "classic" items should be ubiquitous/"standard gear", so a new ("non-classic") item doesn't have the right to reach that status. I'm guessing this because it's so similar to what you're saying, though I could be wrong. :)
@ Jiggy: I think what Kyle is saying (and I’m sure he’ll correct me if I’m wrong) is that you can’t just look at an item in a vacuum as equal to all other items based simply on the fact that they are an item (mundane, magical, or otherwise). A Torch does not significantly change combat mechanics, especially in relation to action economy. A SLWS does. So what if the SLWS is 250 times more expensive. The equivalent items that change action economy that are magical, can typically only do what the SLWS does a limited number of times a day. For 5 gold pieces you can get an item that permanently gives you a swift action to draw something.
So look at the item in the vacuum of “its an item that everyone needs” if you want. But you have to look at the situation holistically, or you aren’t really analyzing the situation by its merits.
Bbauzh ap Aghauzh |
Kyle Baird wrote:Chris Mortika wrote:I love 3a.3) Almost no GMs enforce the "provoke an AoO" clause, if my players' shocked objections are to be believed.
3a) Most of those players then realize that they don't have the rules for the SLWS handy, and their toy suddenly stops working at all.
I wasn't at the table, but a friend told me that he had a judge that did this to players at his table.
Judge: "Yes, I know you own the Adventurer's Armory - I saw you with it last week. But you don't have it with your right now, so you can't use the SLWS".
I didn't beleave him, but I guess I need to revise my opinion. Are there really judges who would do this?
If I don't have it, and the player doesn't believe me when I say that using the SLWS provokes an AoO, so I ask them to show me the text of the item... and they don't have it...
Darn straight they can't use it (even if I know they own the book). Because now I can't adjudicate how the thing is supposed to work.
nosig |
nosig wrote:Sure! You had the source last week and we went over how it works. Now I can't remember the exact wording and I want to see if it's being used correctly. Can you please provide the rules for it? No? Then I'm going to ask that you don't use it.Kyle Baird wrote:Chris Mortika wrote:I love 3a.3) Almost no GMs enforce the "provoke an AoO" clause, if my players' shocked objections are to be believed.
3a) Most of those players then realize that they don't have the rules for the SLWS handy, and their toy suddenly stops working at all.
I wasn't at the table, but a friend told me that he had a judge that did this to players at his table.
Judge: "Yes, I know you own the Adventurer's Armory - I saw you with it last week. But you don't have it with your right now, so you can't use the SLWS".
I didn't beleave him, but I guess I need to revise my opinion. Are there really judges who would do this?
Kyle, I think we both realize that the judge knew how the item worked - he just didn't like it. In fact, on the night this happened I think there were several copies of the AA in the store (at different tables, perhaps even at that table), it's just that that player that day had chosen to bring something else (his Inner Sea World Guide?), and needed the space in the back pack so he had left it at home. The judges statement was not "I don't know how it works...", it was "got the document on you right now?"... and that's what is pushing me to get a tablet (like my wife uses).
I can't carry all my stuff - even with the trunk of my car right outside the shop.
I guess I could stop packing my judging stuff - and just show up to play...
Jiggy RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 |
Bbauzh ap Aghauzh |
@Andy: None of what you quoted from me was in any way an analysis of the brokenness of the item. In fact, I was (like you) trying to get Kyle/Drogon to look at the item outside "the vacuum of 'it's an item that everyone needs'".
But the problem is, they've already done that analysis. The end result is, "its an item everyone needs" because its broken for its cost. They just didn't show their work.
Drogon Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds |
Jiggy, Trollbill, there is a difference between something everyone should have (clothing, armor, weapons) and equipment that is so far into the MUST category that people will actually call you stupid for not having (SLWS, quick runner's shirt, the falcon-bracers-whose-name-I-don't-recall).
I'll do a Magic analogy in an effort to clear up the difference, not that I expect it to work: everyone has to have basic lands for their decks to function. But if a dual land comes along (one that makes two colors) and you can play that instead without any drawback (including have as many of them as you want in your deck), why would you NOT play with those, instead?
You can't ban basic lands. They're a necessary part of the game. But please don't make something that is BETTER than basic lands at their job and allow them to occupy the same position in the game. Dual lands aren't broken, either. They're not going to automatically allow you to win (like, for instance, Jace the Mindsculptor in its heyday). But your chances of winning would be much higher than with basic lands.
Spring loaded wrist sheath is that good. It trumps every other option at any cost. Busted? No. You don't auto-win because of them. But you are stupid if you don't have them. That is their problem.
Kyle's haversack vs bag of holding is another excellent analogy.
Nefreet |
The SLWS is a no-brainer as it would help every single PC be better for 5 gp w/o using a magical slot.
This disturbed me. Are there people out there claiming that the SLWS doesn't take up the "wrists" slot? Because it quite clearly does. Just as you can't wear Slippers of Spider Climb with those mundane boots that give your feet fire resistance.
Chris Mortika RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16 |
Kyle Baird wrote:Sure, I'll buy that. Can you reference me a rule that says things provoke by default?James Risner wrote:It provokes because it doesn't say it doesn't
James, the plain ol' wrist sheath provokes attacks of opportunity*. The rules say so.
The spring-loaded version is exactly the same as the non-spring-loaded version except for one thing: it's a swift action instead of a move action. The rules say so.We aren't talking about actions in general. We're talking about using a regular ol' wrist sheath.
* ... which is a little bit odd, 'cause the sheath is supposed to give you a bonus to the Sleight of Hand check necessary to slip something into your hand. Sorta hard to do that, when every opponent within strikin' distance sees you doin' something that lets 'em take a free poke at you.
Jiggy RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 |
But the problem is, they've already done that analysis. The end result is, "its an item everyone needs" because its broken for its cost. They just didn't show their work.
It is not that the item is broken. It is that it is an "automatic" to include in your inventory.
Drogon originally separated brokenness from auto-include, and cited the latter and specifically NOT the former as the problem. That's what I've been replying to this whole time.
Fromper |
Kyle Baird wrote:Sure, I'll buy that. Can you reference me a rule that says things provoke by default?James Risner wrote:It provokes because it doesn't say it doesn't
Agreed. The combat chapter of the Core Rulebook has a very long and specific list of action types that do and don't provoke attacks of opportunity. As far as I know, there's no default stated anywhere for actions that aren't on that list, one way or the other.
There are two specific actions in that chapter that might apply to the SLWS specifically, so we look at those.
Retrieving a stored item is usually a move action that provokes. Some people say that using the SLWS is retrieval of a stored item, so it also provokes. But it's not a move action, so it's different. Does that mean it doesn't provoke after all?
Casting a swift action spell never provokes. This is the only type of swift action in the Core Rulebook. Does this mean swift actions never provoke?
The fact is that there are no RAW answers to these questions, as far as I know. That's why I clicked the FAQ button on your earlier post. Maybe we should start a new thread just for everyone to click the FAQ button on the question of whether or not using a SLWS provokes.
Chris Mortika RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16 |
Are there people out there claiming that the SLWS doesn't take up the "wrists" slot? Because it quite clearly does. Just as you can't wear Slippers of Spider Climb with those mundane boots that give your feet fire resistance.
Nefreet, you can pile all sorts of non-magical gizmos on your wrists. (Heck, you can wear more than two mundane rings.) But the magic chakram-energies of the PC's wrist slots can only respond to one magic item at a time.
Nefreet |
Nefreet wrote:Are there people out there claiming that the SLWS doesn't take up the "wrists" slot? Because it quite clearly does. Just as you can't wear Slippers of Spider Climb with those mundane boots that give your feet fire resistance.Nefreet, you can pile all sorts of non-magical gizmos on your wrists. (Heck, you can wear more than two mundane rings.) But the magic chakram-energies of the PC's wrist slots can only respond to one magic item at a time.
I'm going to have to look that up when I get home, if you don't mind. If that was true, you could just buy and wear a wrist sheath for every wand you owned.
nosig |
Long ago, in a 1st ed. home game, my players and I decided that a person should be able to carry a few things "on belt". We actually refered to it at "on belt items". These items were gotten easily, quickly, and were normally carried in small belt pouches. (picture a policemans belt - which was what we modeled it after).
In PFS we can't have that. Right? I can't have a shieth designed to hold a wand, and a belt pouch added to hold that potion I just might need "at hand". We have something called a wrist shieth. And you can only carry one thing in it, and you can (normally) only have two on your person.
Picking one (or maybe) two small things from all your equipment that you want your PC to have ready at hand... I don't personally (just an opinion) think this is either broken, or even unreasonable. Not even close to the the fact that a PC can carry a quiver of arrows and draw any number of them as a free action! Or goodness - load and fire a one shot pistol more than once a round (6 seconds!)...
Jiggy RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 |
@Drogon - That analogy works, as I've some experience with MtG. :)
So from that, it sounds like the issue is not "it's an auto-include", but rather "it's better than things it shouldn't be better than".
That can be discussed. :)
So, what's it better than? The only comparable things I can think of are the tiefling's Prehensile Tail (which is actually better than the sheath) and the gloves of storing (which can also store the item, doesn't eat your swift for the round, and can be used with a much wider variety of items). Is there something I missed?
James Risner Owner - D20 Hobbies |
James, the plain ol' wrist sheath provokes attacks of opportunity*. The rules say so.
Sure, but it doesn't say it provokes and "free actions rarely incur" with a swift is "like a free action", how do we know the omitting wasn't to default to not provoking. Especially considering the final line clarifies that loading it provokes and it would have not used additional words to clarify both provoke:
"This item works like a standard wrist sheath, but releasing an item from it is a swift action. Preparing the sheath for this use requires cranking the sheath’s tiny gears and springs into place (a full-round action that provokes an attack of opportunity)."
to
"This item works like a standard wrist sheath, but releasing an item from it is a swift action. Preparing the sheath for this use is a full-round action that requires cranking the sheath’s tiny gears and springs into place (both provoke attacks of opportunity)."
Anyway, I've never seen this item and I've never found a player with one, so I don't care how it works. I just am not entirely convinced that it does in fact provokes.
Drogon Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds |
Kyle Baird wrote:Sure, I'll buy that. Can you reference me a rule that says things provoke by default?James Risner wrote:It provokes because it doesn't say it doesn't
BWAHAHAHAHA!
Permissive vs non-permissive. Love it.
James, show me the rule that says I can't fly simply by flapping my arms. Show me the rule that says I can't walk on water by running really fast. Show me the rule that says I can't smear cammo paint on me and get the effects of Chameleon Stride.
To be clear, I'm not picking on you. I think you are a very reasonable person asking a very reasonable question.
But the rules of Patfhinder are exactly what I referenced very early on in this thread: permissive. If the game says YOU CAN then you will be able to do what you want. If it doesn't say YOU CAN then you had better expect a GM to make a ruling you don't like when you try to pull things that THEY don't like.
Drogon Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds |
Drogon Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds |
The Fourth Horseman |
Couple of things:
1: I've sat under the assumption that the SLWS takes up the bracer slot and have NOT purchased magic bracers. That may be wrong.
2: I use the SLWS for one character for one purpose. To hold a scroll of Breath of Life. Without the sheath the scroll is worthless, as no character would have the action economy to use the scroll (short mythic heroes). I've saved 2 characters in my Cleric's 15 levels. If using SLWS/BoL to save my friends' characters from death is wrong, I don't wanna be right.
David Bowles |
I think the main issue here trollbill, is that many guys who mostly GM, feel the pain of action economy every time they run a scenario. This is the nature of the game. PCs often have more actions per round than the NPCs. It can become a fairly helpless feeling sometimes, which is not fun.
This gets exacerbated when the PCs keep finding ways of improving their action economy, but the NPCs still have their set number of actions they can take.
So this is what raises the hackles when someone tries to “push” the rules to achieve better action economy with something that borderline should work the way the player is trying to make it work (i.e. scrolls or potions in wrist sheaths.)
I’m not saying either side is wrong. Just giving a potential reasoning behind why there is so much resistance to scrolls and potions in wrist sheaths.
Mundane items that seriously effect action economy (spring loaded wrist sheaths and weapon cords) should never have been created for the game, or allowed in PFS. But the cat’s outta the bag, and now we have to figure out how to work with them.
I don't feel pain as a GM. I don't care if the NPC's win or lose. I'm there to adjudicate, not advocate. I find GMs "out to get the players" to be incredibly annoying to play with.
If the NPC's are hapless paste eaters, it's because the authors wrote a horrible encounter. The authors are already apt to write encounters that can't deal with the slightest bit of innovative PC tactics. The PC's having a scroll from a spring loaded wrist sheath is not a tipping point by any stretch.
Dhjika |
Kyle Baird wrote:Tieflings. Wizards with +1 BAB.
I think what's also funny is that not every character benefits from a torch. Those with darkvision or the ability to cast light don't need/want them (unless they like burning stuff). Find me a character that doesn't benefit from a SLWS (maybe a haunted oracle?).
Actually even for Wizards with +1 BAB - the SLWR is useful - for wands that have a 1 round casting (which are NOT uncommon)
Benrislove |
Retrieving an item provokes attacks of opportunity.
Using a SLWS retrieve's a stowed item.
Using an SLWS allows you to do so as a swift action.
it doesn't say that retrieving an item from the SLWS doesn't provoke, so it does.
Seriously, it's 5gp for for an action economy booster, in a game that is based on action economy...
Drogon Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds |
Couple of things:
1: I've sat under the assumption that the SLWS takes up the bracer slot and have NOT purchased magic bracers. That may be wrong.
2: I use the SLWS for one character for one purpose. To hold a scroll of Breath of Life. Without the sheath the scroll is worthless, as no character would have the action economy to use (short mythic heroes). I've saved 2 characters in my Cleric's 15 levels. If using SLWS/BoL to save my friends' characters from death is wrong, I don't wanna be right.
You are someone who is using this item in a reasonable way without pushing its limits. Thus, you are not on any GM's "radar" when it comes to this item. That's a good spot to be.
But point #1 is making you reevaluate your reasonableness, isn't it? And, even if it does take the bracer slot, you're thinking to yourself, "Hm. How many times has my ranger wanted that gravity bow wand as a swift? How much would it mean to be able to buff, move, then full attack the following round for my fighter? How much does it mean for me to be able to not have to MEMORIZE breath of life, actually?" Those are all pretty good deals. Especially at 5gp...
Sniggevert |
Sniggevert wrote:There's actually a named shield that does that...Caster's Shield.Looks like this one requires scroll scribing so could only be 'reloaded' by an NPC. Maybe not as helpful as you would like. :-(
Never said it was all that helpful of an item. I was just pointing out there was already a specific item that sole purpose was to do what was being proposed w/a regular shield. I was trying to avoid a gotcha moment at a table when GM might nix the idea due to this item's availability.
Todd Lower |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
2: I use the SLWS for one character for one purpose. To hold a scroll of Breath of Life. Without the sheath the scroll is worthless, as no character would have the action economy to use the scroll (short mythic heroes). I've saved 2 characters in my Cleric's 15 levels. If using SLWS/BoL to save my friends' characters from death is wrong, I don't wanna be right.
This!
David Bowles |
trollbill wrote:I could argue using a scroll of BoL with a SLWS would be one of those cases of broken for the right reasons.And there are many people who I know and respect that share the same opinion. I do not. I think it trivializes the need to learn and understand good tactics. It's my opinion that too many of these "easy" solutions to serious consequences leads to ill-prepared adventurers.
So the wording of BoL makes having a scroll of it virtually worthless without the SLWS.
But there's not going to be a shift of tactics. It just means my cleric is going to actually prepare BoL instead of having a scroll that's usable. Which makes the cleric just one notch less fun to play.
In a game of Tetori monks that wrap up BBEG with grapple checks they can't mathematically escape from, bloat mages that can end most standard encounters with one or two nukes, PC builds that breach 33+ armor class, fighter archers that deal 100+ dpr, and everything else I can't think of right now, THIS is what people are going to decry as cheese? Okay.
Remember, the game is partially based on action economy, but it is also based in sheer mathematics which can overcome action economy. If the PC has an armor class that can only be hit on a "20", they can overcome pretty high odds against foes that attack armor class.