Spring-Loaded Wrist Sheath


Pathfinder Society

251 to 300 of 513 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade 2/5

So this is a great thread. I have learned a ton about the SLWS.

I'm with Kyle and Drogon on this one...

Shadow Lodge 3/5

Mahtobedis wrote:
What if the scroll were very very sharp?

Roll to see if you get a papercut while ejecting the scroll!

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

Woot! 6 pages so far.

Grand Lodge

I'm surprised at this. My little thread turned into a very informative and interesting thread for an item that needed more clarification and input.

Thanks for the input from the more experienced society members.

Sovereign Court 5/5 Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
Woot! 6 pages so far.

Yeah, it turned into a pretty saucy thread for starting with such an innocent question. I have to say, though, that I'm impressed with how civil everyone has been. Not one instance of name-calling, and nothing even close to drawing the dreaded "Deleted some posts" responses from moderators. Well done, everyone.

Also, after having reread the thread, David Bowles wins me over with this little nugget:

David Bowles wrote:
I accept this situation because I am running something written by someone else, using a CR system I don't exactly think is accurate, and with tactics I'm not legally allowed to deviate from, even when they are suicidal. Why should I even get remotely irritated? This game is not some kind of competition. Starcraft and 40K are competitive.

I too often forget about that when discussing these things. So, thank you for focusing yet one more thing for me, David. If I'm at that table so players can have fun (and, admittedly, "win") then why should I be annoyed by spring loaded wrist sheaths? Or ioun torches? They may be "too good to be overlooked," but players think they're fun. Who am I to ruin peoples' fun?

Spoiler:
Weapon cords are still dumb, though. They actually DO ruin peoples' fun, in my opinion, and should just go away. d-:

Silver Crusade 2/5

I've run a lot of early season stuff. That makes your skin thick, quick. I got my first animal companion kill last night, but that was due to a fluke of rolling. If it had been a PC chain tripping the NPC in question, they would have eaten the death instead, as the NPC figured he couldn't afford to be tripped.

I think this goes back to my experiences in homebrew. If the PCs get lucky or clever, or both and kill a key villain ahead of schedule, many GMs get mad, but I just make up something else equally or even more heinous. I have an unlimited supply of NPC obstacles. I'm not super attached to any of them, as it is usually expected that the PCs win.

Liberty's Edge 4/5 5/55/5 **

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Drogon wrote:
weapon cords? (-;

He was actually looking at banning weapon Cords at the time he was looking at Gunslinger, he already decided not to ban them at that time.

Sovereign Court 5/5 Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds

Dragnmoon wrote:
Drogon wrote:
weapon cords? (-;
He was actually looking at banning weapon Cords at the time he was looking at Gunslinger, he already decided not to ban them at that time.

I believe I (and he) have proven many times that one can always change one's mind. (-:

Scarab Sages 2/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drogon wrote:
Dragnmoon wrote:
Drogon wrote:
weapon cords? (-;
He was actually looking at banning weapon Cords at the time he was looking at Gunslinger, he already decided not to ban them at that time.
I believe I (and he) have proven many times that one can always change one's mind. (-:

There was a response from Mike Brock a while back that explains that even though the dual pistol with weapon cords is still legal, the drawback to attacking is horrendously high:

Michael Brock wrote:

Ok, I've dug out some of the conversation from the BC message board where we discussed this at length in almost 500 reply thread.

Double Barrel Pistol:

Most GM’s and people who create ranged characters, realize that precise shot is almost mandatory, even for gunslingers and alchemists (although I have yet to take it with my level 9 alchemist). This is even more true for the Double Barrel Pistol dual-wielding build.

The feats you need to make this worthwhile.

Rapid Reload
Point Blank Shot (to get Rapid and Precise)
Rapid Shot
Precise Shot

Otherwise, you get the -4 for shooting both barrels as the same action. -4 for dual-wielding two one-handed weapons. -4 for the inevitable firing into melee penalty (unless precise shot is taken). +4 to target’s AC for the inevitable cover.

In almost every circumstance, cover and melee is an issue for ranged specialists. They have to specifically maneuver to avoid the cover, which often means they only get a single attack (two shots with a double barrel).

The above math shows, until you fight huge creatures with sub-10 touch AC’s, that these penalties balance the double barrel with the archer.

Additionally, remember, the weapon cord requires a swift action, not a free. As such, you can’t recover both pistols in the same round. The action for improved two-weapon fighting and rapid shot would look like:
Round 1: Fire P1 (both barrels), Fire P2 (both barrels), drop P1, reload P2, fire P2 (both barrels), reload P2, drop P2, recover P1, reload P1, fire P1 (both barrels), reload P1, fire P1 (both barrels), reload P1. That’s 10 shots where each is minimum -10 (-4 for firing both barrels, -4 for dual-wielding one-handed weapons, -2 for rapid shot). Assuming 20 Dex, that’s a +11 to hit, with the penalties of -10, that’s +1/+1/+1/+1/+1/+1/+1/+1/+1/+1
Round 2: Fire P1 (both barrels), reload P1, Fire P1 (both barrels), reload P1, Fire P1 (both barrels), drop P1, recover P2, fire P2 (both barrels), reload P2, fire P2 (both barrels). That’s 10 shots where each is minimum -10 (-4 for firing both barrels, -4 for dual-wielding one-handed weapons, -2 for rapid shot). Assuming 20 Dex, that’s a +11 to hit, with the penalties of -10, that’s +1/+1/+1/+1/+1/+1/+1/+1/+1/+1
Round 2: Fire P1 (both barrels), reload P1, Fire P1 (both barrels), reload P1, Fire P1 (both barrels), drop P1, recover P2, fire P2 (both barrels), reload P2, fire P2 (both barrels). That’s 10 shots again.

If you clarify that you can’t reload with weapon cords and assuming Quick Draw, it changes to:

Round 1: Fire P1 (both barrels), Fire P2 (both barrels)
Round 2: holster P2, reload P1, fire P1 (both barrels), reload P1
Round 3: holster P1, draw P2, fire P2 (both barrels, reload P2

You get a huge 1st round, but after that, you actually gimp yourself with the build, it works better if after Round 1, you just drop P2 and use all your iterative for P1.

With iterative and rapid shot, at 11th level, you could get essentially 8 shots a round at -6 per shot (-4 for shooting both barrels in same action and -2 for rapid shot). That -6 is actually significant for most medium or smaller humanoids that aren’t heavily armored. When Touch ACs of Large and larger creatures moves towards 10 and lower, then the less that -6 matters. But then the more damage they can take. Also, these penalties don’t include the penalties for deadly aim. At 11th level, that -6 becomes a -9. For the Dual-Wielder the -10 becomes a -13. And this all doesn’t consider cover and melee if they choose not to take precise shot.

Scarab Sages 5/5

Walter Sheppard wrote:


It's fine, we can ban the 75 gp ioun torch
The 25 gp ioun stone that does nothing would still be legal.
As would continual flame, which costs 50 gold to cast...

And if you got a cleric to cast that spell you would have a 3rd level light spell that some GMs allow to affect deeper darkness.

Scarab Sages 5/5

CRobledo wrote:


Naw, the cheese was about having my azata with UMD and SLWS carrying around multiple BOL scrolls.

So how long is your familiar's forearm - or do you just buy tiny scrolls - is there an increase of price for those?

Silver Crusade 2/5

Dhjika wrote:
Walter Sheppard wrote:


It's fine, we can ban the 75 gp ioun torch
The 25 gp ioun stone that does nothing would still be legal.
As would continual flame, which costs 50 gold to cast...
And if you got a cleric to cast that spell you would have a 3rd level light spell that some GMs allow to affect deeper darkness.

That would be an illegal ruling by RAW. Deeper Darkness Explicitly states that spells of the same level can not raise the light level. Daylight gets around this by negating the effect, not raising the light level. Of course, Daylight has the identical effect on level 2 darkness, which is a little annoying.

5/5 *

Dhjika wrote:
CRobledo wrote:
Naw, the cheese was about having my azata with UMD and SLWS carrying around multiple BOL scrolls.
So how long is your familiar's forearm - or do you just buy tiny scrolls - is there an increase of price for those?

I assume that, like many other magic items, they just resize to match :)

5/5

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Only clothing items resize to match the wearer. Not armor, weapon, or anything like scrolls.

5/5 *

Majuba wrote:
Only clothing items resize to match the wearer. Not armor, weapon, or anything like scrolls.

I meant in PFS. As per the section in P22 of the guide, when purchasing magic items you may purchase them at any size, as long as they are adjusted by the size rules in the CRB p 144.

Actually, the CRB specifically calls out clothing and jewelry. Then it goes on to say that "Size should not keep characters of various kinds from using magic items." There is then a disctinction specific to weapons and armor only. There are certainly tiny creatures with scrolls (in PFS scenarios), and they are able to make use of them.

I don't see the problem for having purchased a scroll for a tiny creature any different than for a medium creature, since the cost adjustment for scrolls of different sizes is zero (as they are not weapons or armor).

Also, see my comment about it being cheesy.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 5/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8

David Bowles wrote:
Dhjika wrote:
Walter Sheppard wrote:


It's fine, we can ban the 75 gp ioun torch
The 25 gp ioun stone that does nothing would still be legal.
As would continual flame, which costs 50 gold to cast...
And if you got a cleric to cast that spell you would have a 3rd level light spell that some GMs allow to affect deeper darkness.
That would be an illegal ruling by RAW. Deeper Darkness Explicitly states that spells of the same level can not raise the light level. Daylight gets around this by negating the effect, not raising the light level. Of course, Daylight has the identical effect on level 2 darkness, which is a little annoying.

That's why at the start of games my cleric tosses out heightened continual flames to anyone in her party that's willing to foot the bill.

Silver Crusade 2/5

Walter Sheppard wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
Dhjika wrote:
Walter Sheppard wrote:


It's fine, we can ban the 75 gp ioun torch
The 25 gp ioun stone that does nothing would still be legal.
As would continual flame, which costs 50 gold to cast...
And if you got a cleric to cast that spell you would have a 3rd level light spell that some GMs allow to affect deeper darkness.
That would be an illegal ruling by RAW. Deeper Darkness Explicitly states that spells of the same level can not raise the light level. Daylight gets around this by negating the effect, not raising the light level. Of course, Daylight has the identical effect on level 2 darkness, which is a little annoying.
That's why at the start of games my cleric tosses out heightened continual flames to anyone in her party that's willing to foot the bill.

Sad part is even that is not any kind of guarantee, depending on the GM. I played with a GM that ruled that while the continual flame did indeed function in deeper darkness, the lighting decrease was applied AFTER the effects of the continual flame, so we were still in darkness level lighting. At least the people with darkvision got to play that fight.

5/5

Please, let's not go off-topic here. There's a thread here where lighting and darkness can be discussed.

Silver Crusade 2/5

Well it seems there's a rift over the SLWS that is not addressed by RAW. So it's gonna be a table variation thing just like lighting until its banned or an FAQ drops.

Besides, in PFS, a lighting effects public service announcement is ALWAYS on topic. :)

Shadow Lodge 4/5 5/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8

Here's a thought.

Why not ask your table GM if they are going to allow potions/scrolls in a spring loaded wrist sheath when the game starts? That way, you can plan accordingly for your purchases for that scenario.

You could even speak with your GM after the game if his opinion differed from yours on the subject, to try and figure out why.

Table variation is fine to have on something like this. It enables the flow of constructive discussion throughout our community. The only time table variation becomes an issue is when someone assumes that an item works a certain way, only to find out the person on the other side of the screen disagrees.

Just ask.

The Exchange

David Bowles wrote:

Well it seems there's a rift over the SLWS that is not addressed by RAW. So it's gonna be a table variation thing just like lighting until its banned or an FAQ drops.

Besides, in PFS, a lighting effects public service announcement is ALWAYS on topic. :)

So I should use spring-loaded permanent light torches constantly until the GM's head explodes....got it.

The Exchange

Walter Sheppard wrote:

Here's a thought.

Why not ask your table GM if they are going to allow potions/scrolls in a spring loaded wrist sheath when the game starts? That way, you can plan accordingly for your purchases for that scenario.

You could even speak with your GM after the game if his opinion differed from yours on the subject, to try and figure out why.

Table variation is fine to have on something like this. It enables the flow of constructive discussion throughout our community. The only time table variation becomes an issue is when someone assumes that an item works a certain way, only to find out the person on the other side of the screen disagrees.

Just ask.

That sounds really reasonable until you put a feat or 2 into being able to swig potions faster and find out that table variation won't let you get the potions to your mouth fast enough for those feats to work and have to play handicapped by a couple of feats.

Silver Crusade 2/5

Fake Healer wrote:
David Bowles wrote:

Well it seems there's a rift over the SLWS that is not addressed by RAW. So it's gonna be a table variation thing just like lighting until its banned or an FAQ drops.

Besides, in PFS, a lighting effects public service announcement is ALWAYS on topic. :)

So I should use spring-loaded permanent light torches constantly until the GM's head explodes....got it.

Exactly. Except I know the RAW for that stuff, as much as they are defined :) It can still bog down a scenario.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 5/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8

Fake Healer wrote:
Walter Sheppard wrote:

Here's a thought.

Why not ask your table GM if they are going to allow potions/scrolls in a spring loaded wrist sheath when the game starts? That way, you can plan accordingly for your purchases for that scenario.

You could even speak with your GM after the game if his opinion differed from yours on the subject, to try and figure out why.

Table variation is fine to have on something like this. It enables the flow of constructive discussion throughout our community. The only time table variation becomes an issue is when someone assumes that an item works a certain way, only to find out the person on the other side of the screen disagrees.

Just ask.

That sounds really reasonable until you put a feat or 2 into being able to swig potions faster and find out that table variation won't let you get the potions to your mouth fast enough for those feats to work and have to play handicapped by a couple of feats.

"Hey GM, what is your ruling on SLWS? Can I use it with potions?"

"No, I don't think they'd work."

"Aww geez, I have two feats invested into drinking potions like a mad man, and now my character is going to be gimped since I can't do that."

"Oh, darn... Well, that is a pretty neat concept. And it's not a summoner*, so I know it's not overpowered or will bog down my game. And you're being polite enough to bring this up prior to the game, and I do want you to have a good time... Tell you what, I'll let you do it with this character. We can say he purchased specialty SLWS designed vials for his potions."

That seems perfectly reasonable. And would take less than a minute to go over at the start of a game.

*replace summoner with every class, as everyone is overpowered in Pathfinder.

Liberty's Edge 1/5

Majuba wrote:
Only clothing items resize to match the wearer. Not armor, weapon, or anything like scrolls.

Unless I missed a change magic armor still resizes. I will need to look into that.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West

Walter Sheppard wrote:

Here's a thought.

Why not ask your table GM if they are going to allow potions/scrolls in a spring loaded wrist sheath when the game starts?

Technically, that's already a requirement - you're supposed to notify your GM if your character uses anything beyond the core assumption.

5/5

Walter Sheppard wrote:

Here's a thought.

Why not ask your table GM if they are going to allow potions/scrolls in a spring loaded wrist sheath when the game starts? That way, you can plan accordingly for your purchases for that scenario.

You could even speak with your GM after the game if his opinion differed from yours on the subject, to try and figure out why.

Table variation is fine to have on something like this. It enables the flow of constructive discussion throughout our community. The only time table variation becomes an issue is when someone assumes that an item works a certain way, only to find out the person on the other side of the screen disagrees.

Just ask.

Talking never solved anything.

Silver Crusade 2/5

Kyle Baird wrote:
Talking never solved anything.

So you're saying I shouldn't bother learning power word blind later on?

5/5 *

Fake Healer wrote:
That sounds really reasonable until you put a feat or 2 into being able to swig potions faster and find out that table variation won't let you get the potions to your mouth fast enough for those feats to work and have to play handicapped by a couple of feats.

If you are talking about "Accelerated Drinker" feat, note that the feat says you must start with the potion in your hand. So SLWS doesn't help with that (unless you used it at the end of your previous turn to get it out as a swift, I guess).

Silver Crusade 2/5

John Francis wrote:
Walter Sheppard wrote:

Here's a thought.

Why not ask your table GM if they are going to allow potions/scrolls in a spring loaded wrist sheath when the game starts?

Technically, that's already a requirement - you're supposed to notify your GM if your character uses anything beyond the core assumption.

That would be very lengthy at many tables. For some PCs I see, it's easier to state what IS from the core assumptions. It's not like the GMs can do anything about it except demand printouts.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 5/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8

Kyle Baird wrote:
Walter Sheppard wrote:

Here's a thought.

Why not ask your table GM if they are going to allow potions/scrolls in a spring loaded wrist sheath when the game starts? That way, you can plan accordingly for your purchases for that scenario.

You could even speak with your GM after the game if his opinion differed from yours on the subject, to try and figure out why.

Table variation is fine to have on something like this. It enables the flow of constructive discussion throughout our community. The only time table variation becomes an issue is when someone assumes that an item works a certain way, only to find out the person on the other side of the screen disagrees.

Just ask.

Talking never solved anything.

Silence Garble, your words are meaningless.

Sing me the song of your people instead.

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

At the beginning of a scenario, after introductions and character descriptions, I ask players:

If you have a mutagen, what does it do?
Do you have any triggered abilities I need to know about?
What do you have stored in your SLWS?
Can I go over your prepared spell list?
What is your Perception for Trap Spotter?
Anything else you feel I should be aware of?

And I'll address anything that seems in error then.

Shadow Lodge 5/5

Less talking, more gugs.

5/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Let's just remove this item from PFS.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 5/55/55/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East

Fake Healer wrote:
Walter Sheppard wrote:

Here's a thought.

Why not ask your table GM if they are going to allow potions/scrolls in a spring loaded wrist sheath when the game starts? That way, you can plan accordingly for your purchases for that scenario.

You could even speak with your GM after the game if his opinion differed from yours on the subject, to try and figure out why.

Table variation is fine to have on something like this. It enables the flow of constructive discussion throughout our community. The only time table variation becomes an issue is when someone assumes that an item works a certain way, only to find out the person on the other side of the screen disagrees.

Just ask.

That sounds really reasonable until you put a feat or 2 into being able to swig potions faster and find out that table variation won't let you get the potions to your mouth fast enough for those feats to work and have to play handicapped by a couple of feats.

I've considered making varient character sheets to counter table variation. If the gm says something I've invested heavily in is illegal, I'd pull out a different sheet where I didn't take that investment. The paperwork and if/then senarios would be a nightmare though.

5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Or you could not build a character around rules that are likely to vary significantly between tables..

Silver Crusade 2/5

That's already impossible, as nearly all PCs need to be able to see to fight.

Sovereign Court 2/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thistledown wrote:

I've considered making varient character sheets to counter table variation. If the gm says something I've invested heavily in is illegal, I'd pull out a different sheet where I didn't take that investment. The paperwork and if/then senarios would be a nightmare though.

Pretty sure you're not allowed to do that. It wouldn't be too far from applying credit to multiple characters at once.

You should instead build your characters to have a back up plan as an alternative to your "controversial" build decisions.

The Exchange 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

I agree with Acedio. If one of my GMs says "That aspect -- feat, trait, class archetype, combination of fancy wonky things -- of your character is illegal, please fix it," then I have one free rebuild to swap out that aspect for a legal option.

If I disagree with the GM, I should (a) not make that rebuild, and (b) play something else at that table.

If I do change out that aspect, then that change is permanent. I don't get to change back after the game. (Unless, I suppose, I find out that the original option was indeed legal, and then I could pay gold and prestige to retrain back to that option.)

I don't get to switch between two different versions of the same character number.

Dark Archive 4/5

David Bowles wrote:
John Francis wrote:
Walter Sheppard wrote:

Here's a thought.

Why not ask your table GM if they are going to allow potions/scrolls in a spring loaded wrist sheath when the game starts?

Technically, that's already a requirement - you're supposed to notify your GM if your character uses anything beyond the core assumption.
That would be very lengthy at many tables. For some PCs I see, it's easier to state what IS from the core assumptions. It's not like the GMs can do anything about it except demand printouts.

It's not too hard for each character to make a list of everything they're using from different books. The first character I've tried this with is level five and his list is roughly a page long. I don't imagine it going above two pages, and it's pretty easy for a GM to scan and see if there's anything he's never heard of.

This also allows me to include the specific page number of each non-core thing I've used so that it's fast to move to a book for ruling purposes.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Chris Mortika wrote:

I agree with Acedio. If one of my GMs says "That aspect -- feat, trait, class archetype, combination of fancy wonky things -- of your character is illegal, please fix it," then I have one free rebuild to swap out that aspect for a legal option.

If I disagree with the GM, I should (a) not make that rebuild, and (b) play something else at that table.

If I do change out that aspect, then that change is permanent. I don't get to change back after the game. (Unless, I suppose, I find out that the original option was indeed legal, and then I could pay gold and prestige to retrain back to that option.

I don't get to switch between two different versions of the same character number.

I dunno. Some DM's have wonky ideas about what works and what doesn't. I can't see loosing prestige or having your build altered because one DM, somewhere, thought you couldn't have more than one archtype or something.

5/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Chris Mortika wrote:

I agree with Acedio. If one of my GMs says "That aspect -- feat, trait, class archetype, combination of fancy wonky things -- of your character is illegal, please fix it," then I have one free rebuild to swap out that aspect for a legal option.

If I disagree with the GM, I should (a) not make that rebuild, and (b) play something else at that table.

If I do change out that aspect, then that change is permanent. I don't get to change back after the game. (Unless, I suppose, I find out that the original option was indeed legal, and then I could pay gold and prestige to retrain back to that option.

I don't get to switch between two different versions of the same character number.

I dunno. Some DM's have wonky ideas about what works and what doesn't. I can't see loosing prestige or having your build altered because one DM, somewhere, thought you couldn't have more than one archtype or something.

That was covered by Chris in disagreeing with the GM...

5/5

There are certain GM's I do not play certain characters with because they disagree about certain interpretations of certain rules.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West

Adam Mogyorodi wrote:

It's not too hard for each character to make a list of everything they're using from different books. The first character I've tried this with is level five and his list is roughly a page long. I don't imagine it going above two pages, and it's pretty easy for a GM to scan and see if there's anything he's never heard of.

This also allows me to include the specific page number of each non-core thing I've used so that it's fast to move to a book for ruling purposes.

That's pretty much what I'm doing with my characters (although I hadn't thought of having the page reference there - good idea! - I was just thinking of having it as the first page in a folder of PDF printouts).

Once I've had a little more experience with how this works, I plan to start encouraging any players at my tables to also have such a list, which should be shown to the GM at the start of a session. The biggest problem I'm still wrestling with is what to do about spontaneous casters' spell lists.

3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mahtobedis wrote:
There are certain GM's I do not play certain characters with because they disagree about certain interpretations of certain rules.

There are certain DMs I do not play with because they do not want to know the rules.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

This is a kinda interesting thread, because it illustrates the difference between 'gamist' and 'simulationist' thinking in game design.

Gamist design holds that the rules are paramount, and that setting or realism issues need to bend in deference to game balance. By contrast, Simulationist design builds the rules around the setting. Most RPGs are a blend of the two philosophies.

The assertion for stuff like spring sheathes and weapon cords and even pasting a scroll page on the inside of regular shields, because they "make sense" or other in-game logical reasoning, is very much simulationist. They are arguably ideas that characters in the setting might have come up with in response to problems they encounter.

Heck, we have real life analogues to all three. Wrist mounted delivery systems placing small items within an instant's reach exist in history, even if they weren't common. Weapon cords appear as retention lanyards used by many soldiers and police - and sailors of yore would tie pistols to their belts to avoid losing them to the briny deep. We have only to look at the ubiquitous sticky note pads to see a solution to needing written stuff to adhere to convenient surfaces.

Gamist design, however, frowns on all three, because they have effects on the overall balance of the game. Terms like "action economy" and "equivalent resource expenditure" are almost purely Gamist. Things like Gloves of Storing and the Reloading Hands spell attempt to balance the mechanical gain of faster actions by requiring greater resource expenditure to achieve them. Heck, the Caster Shield only exists for gamist reasons - there is no real good in-game logical reason someone would ever come up with such a magic item when slapping a spell scroll on a shield with a dab of glue is faster, easier, and cheaper.

The "pro" side so far tends to argue simulationist points. The "anti" side seems to mostly present gamist arguments. The problem is, the discussion keeps going round and round because both sides are "right", in a way.

-k

5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
David Bowles wrote:
That's already impossible, as nearly all PCs need to be able to see to fight.

You've already won the award for beating the deadest horse in Golarion, why can't you just stop already? Or perhaps keep that discussion on the rules board.

Silver Crusade 2/5

Because it's a very important illustration of how table variation is unavoidable. And, by extension, planning to avoid table variation entirely is impossible. I suppose you might argue that one can minimize exposure to table variation, but from what I've seen, even that is very difficult. So people might as well use what they like and ask GM permission.

4/5

it is always good to ask, especially if the answer is no.

personally I like SLWS and Wpn Cords, hollow pommels, false bottomed scabbards, hidden and concealed pockets, (boot sheath), (possum pouch). All are pretty much mundane ways to conceal or get something.

They are somewhat transitory items as you should be picking up a handy haversack around 4-5th level, particularly if you are a wizard/support character. Items are then a move action away, not just what you have in the sheath.
Unseen Servant comes in handy to carry and fetch things for you out of your HH.

SLWS & BoL Scroll are a great combo... again HH & BoL work but you have to be there (your move went to get the item).... beats paying for a raise etc the next day which is the whole point of the spell.

5/5

Jason Wu wrote:

Gamist design holds that the rules are paramount, and that setting or realism issues need to bend in deference to game balance. By contrast, Simulationist design builds the rules around the setting. Most RPGs are a blend of the two philosophies.

...

The "pro" side so far tends to argue simulationist points. The "anti" side seems to mostly present gamist arguments. The problem is, the discussion keeps going round and round because both sides are "right", in a way.

As my previous posts have stated, the Spring-loaded wrist sheath fails on both counts:

From a simulationist point of view: actual, real-world spring-loaded wrist sheaths pretty much need to be designed for the item they're going to hold, are complex and bloody dangerous.

From a gamist point of view: spring-loaded wrist sheaths break action economy, and are massively undercosted for what they provide.

The only argument that stands is the third argument - the powergamer's argument (spring-loaded wrist sheaths make my character more powerful! Please don't restrict or ban them).

It's an interesting observation that most of the people arguing for widening what can be put in a wrist sheath have comparatively fewer GM stars. Perhaps this is related.

251 to 300 of 513 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Spring-Loaded Wrist Sheath All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.